eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Oct 6 eCat Analysis

October 13, 2011

Alan Fletcher has posted an interesting analysis of the Oct 6 test on the Vortex mailing list. There is a mine of excellent detail and I recommend the technically inclined to follow that thread (and others at Vortex).

The analysis was conducted by Bob Higgins of Motorola and sent to Mats Lewan (Ny Teknik), Alan and others at Vortex. He has also joined the discussion on that thread.

Hello Mr. Lewan,

I am enclosing my spreadsheet analysis of the data you published for Ing. Rossi’s October 6 test at U. of Bologna of his E-cat. In this analysis, I tried to incorporate reported items such as water leakage, heat loss through the insulation, difference in source water temperature and the water temperature of Tin, and the final energy stored in the E-cat when the experiment was terminated. If you have the occasion to look through this analysis, I would appreciate hearing of anything you find that may not be consistent with your observation as a first hand witness to the test. You are welcome to share this with others that may also be able to evaluate the analysis for missing features or wrong calculations.

We considered the possibility of contamination of the Tout by the hot water/steam of the heat exchanger primary input. However, because the secondary water was flowing up out of the secondary outlet and out of the brass header, and the contamination primary heat would have to pass this water to reach the thermocouple, and because the flow rate was high in the secondary, heat from the primary inlet would quickly be diverted into the secondary outlet water. Thus, very little of this contamination heat would make it to the thermocouple and cause temperature error – we regarded it as a possible minor second order error. If you draw a cross-section picture of this pipe and the flowing water, you can see how possible contamination heat from the primary inlet would likely terminate in the secondary outlet water long before reaching the thermocouple.

I would agree with everyone else that there was much that could have been improved the experiment, but the real point now it to understand the data we have and determine what information that can be derived from it with confidence.

It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be switching from “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work with acceptable commercial COP”. Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale excess energy? In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period. I am personally excited by the results and data from the experiment.

Thanks to Ing. Rossi for hosting the experiment – he was under obligation to no one to do the experiment – and to you for reporting the data.

Regards,
Bob Higgins
Motorola Solutions

[Tip o' the hat to Maryyugo]

Posted by on October 13, 2011. Filed under Bologna,Media & Blogs,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

217 Responses to Oct 6 eCat Analysis

  1. jcragris Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Thank you admin for highlighting this analysis

  2. popeye Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Higgins> “We considered the possibility of contamination of the Tout by the hot water/steam of the heat exchanger primary input. [...] we regarded it as a possible minor second order error.”

    “We regard it as minor” is hardly satisfactory to this skeptic. The real question is why would Rossi use such questionable thermocouple placements, when it is obvious to anyone that the best way to measure the water temperature is to put the probe in the water. The erratic behaviour alone of the measured temperature difference shows the folly of his method.

    Higgins> “It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be switching from “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work with acceptable commercial COP”.”

    I don’t see that happening. The first reaction from me and others was that the claimed energy density did not exclude chemical reactions. Later, the questions of thermocouple placements arose that for me make the entire show worthless, in spite of Higgins’ regarding it as minor.

    > “Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale excess energy?”

    Not this skeptic. I suspect there is some energy production in the ecat (it’s big enough), but the evidence does not show it, and it certainly doesn’t show that it is large scale.

    > “In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough.”

    Please! Even if you accept Higgins’ calculations, the same feat of water heating can be performed with a device 1/10 the mass, smaller in volume, in 1/2 the time, using a simple, portable propane water heater for camp showers (linked to previously). And no additional electrical power needed, thank you very much.

    Since when is a water heater 10 times too heavy a physics shattering breakthrough?!

    > “It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period.”

    Well, assuming Higgins is right about the thermocouple placement, and that it could have kept going for a longer period. Ten times longer without input power at the claimed output would have been interesting. 100 times longer would have been a breakthrough. Unfortunately, it didn’t run longer, and as Higgins says: “the real point now is to understand the data *we have*”, not speculate on data we would like to have.

  3. maryyugo Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 12:52 am

    I agree with Popeye. The issue of the temperature out sensor located near the hottest part of the entire heat exchanger is not settled by argument. You could approach it with detailed heat transfer calculations but that would be very complex. The easiest way to test for this is to calibrate the system with the already available, built in electrical heater. Why that was not done and why it was not insisted upon by a single one of all the incredibly brilliant scientists and engineers who witnessed the demonstration is mystifying. Perhaps, again, they were simply too polite to question Maestro Impressario Andrea Rossi.

    I think pretty much everyone now agrees that the measurements done at that demo show more thermal energy out than measured from the heater. The questions remain:

    - Is that output energy being accurately measured? and

    - Is there some hidden and unaccounted for source of heat?

    It is suggested in the Vortex list that Rossi’s mysterious “frequencies” are a radio frequency (RF) generator with considerable power perhaps in the microwave spectrum. Such a generator could heat the temperature measuring thermocouple or otherwise compromise measurement accuracy. Any calibrations should have been done with that device running as it does during an actual experiment. Of course no calibration at all was carried out. That’s SO WRONG!

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 12:58 am

      Why don’t you and Pops go over to Vortex and discuss it with Bob? I’m sure he would enjoy a lively discussion with two intellectual giants like yourselves.

      • maryyugo Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 2:19 am

        No need. I don’t like email lists. Too much bother. And all of this will shake out fairly soon probably. I can hardly wait for the Big Steam Machine. Obviously you and others don’t understand the calibration issue. That tells me you know nothing whatever about either science or engineering so I don’t really care about your opinions and views except inasmuch as they illustrate that great unwashed public out there just waiting to be bamboozled and flummoxed.

        • Ben Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 3:04 am

          From what I read over at Vortex, Bob is an senior engineer at Motorola and he took the time to actually run one of the most detailed analysis of the Oct. 6 yet, and his numbers show the highest heat output of anybody I have read in the last week. If you and Pops have an issue with his calculations, you need to go over there and ask him questions, rather than posting a detailed FUD analysis over here.

          I will not lose a penny if this turns out to be a fraud but poor Motorola could stand to lose a bundle. Bob said they considered investing in James Patterson’s Power Cell cold fusion device in the 1990s but Patterson wanted too big a piece of the pie. Sounds to me like someone at Motorola might be considering investing in cold fusion again, so they probably need your amazing skills of analysis to keep them from taking the plunge this time. The world needs a Yugo and Pops to keep them safe. Duty calls, chop-chop.

          Or have you been banned from Vortex too?

          • Brad Arnold

            October 14, 2011 at 11:17 am

            “The world needs a Yugo and Pops to keep them safe. Duty calls, chop-chop.” Both strike me as obtuse. Skeptical means keeping an open mind, not being cynical. One wonders what would convince these naysayers. Talk about overly critical analysis.

          • Shadowhunter

            October 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm

            Maryyugo and popeye have special interest in lenr NOT coming to market.

            Is this not ridiculously obvious by now?

            Discussing/arguing with these people/group(s) are a complete waste of time.

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm

            “Discussing/arguing with these people/group(s) are a complete waste of time.”

            Yes it is. Unfortunately of course, if people do not engage and challenge the constant stream of misinformation, innuendo, smears and caricatures, fake concerns, half truths and repetitive duplication coming from them, then the floor becomes theirs, and the blog might as well be closed down.

            They know that, the rest of us know that, and the game goes on. As you say, it is now quite apparent that some ‘contributors’ are not just argumentative obsessive/compulsives who don’t get out enough, but have agendas that have little to do with discussion of developments and possibilities.

      • B Fast Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 2:30 am

        :)

      • popeye Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 2:57 am

        From the Vortex rules:

        “Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of ‘true believers’ (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust.”

        I think that excludes me. Just as well. While there are a couple of smart participants, the list is teeming with ignorance; with people who continue to insist that a relative humidity probe can be used to determine steam quality, e.g.

        • Ben Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 3:10 am

          There are skeptics over there and one of them posted a positive analysis of the test as well. Some of them even favor the sentence by sentence analysis you are so fond of, so you may fit right in. This is your chance to question a Senior Motorola Engineer about his analysis instead of cowardly doing it over here where he can neither see or respond to it. Go ahead Pops, give Bob your best shot. Frankly, I don’t think you have the stones to do it.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 3:24 am

            > where he can neither see or respond to it

            Has he been banned from this site?

          • Ben

            October 14, 2011 at 3:53 am

            Is that the point?

        • Brad Arnold Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 11:22 am

          Skeptic: a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

          Obtuse: not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

          Critic: a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgments; faultfinder.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm

            Analyst: A person who reviews and examines data or information for a specific area

            Realist: One who is inclined to literal truth and pragmatism.

            Charlatan: A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims

            Rossi’s Claim exceeds his demonstration by 10,000 times. Which definition would you apply?

    • B Fast Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 2:33 am

      maryyugo:
      I think pretty much everyone now agrees that the measurements done at that demo show more thermal energy out than measured from the heater. The questions remain:
      - Is that output energy being accurately measured? and
      - Is there some hidden and unaccounted for source of heat?

      I think this is progress! BTW Popeye, do you agree with this statement of maryyugo’s?

      • popeye Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:18 am

        >> “I think pretty much everyone now agrees that the measurements done at that demo show more thermal energy out than measured from the heater.[...]

        > “BTW Popeye, do you agree with this statement of maryyugo’s?”

        Actually, no. I *do* think the ecat probably produces some heat. After all, hydrogen and nickel produce heat chemically. And why else would he go to so much trouble with the hydrogen and the cooling fins etc.

        But I don’t think the demo itself provides adequate evidence that it is producing heat. I have no confidence in the temperature change measurement, and if the cooling water is not removing very much heat, the 80 kg device containing 30L of water could stay hot for a long time.

        Again, it may, and probably does produce some heat, but in my opinion, Rossi’s evidence is too shabby to be sure.

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:54 am

          I think B Fast misunderstood me. I said we don’t know whether the instruments worked properly because there was no calibration or standardization. And we don’t know where the excess heat if any came from– in other words chemical sources and such things as nickel hydrogen CHEMICAL and physico-chemical reactions are NOT ruled out. So basically Popeye and I agree.

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 10:51 am

            I see you’re still shaking the ‘exothermic chemical reaction’ bone to death, mary and popeye. In this case mary’s logic seems to be rather faulty (possibly not for the first time). Rossi claims the the core contains nickel dust, but why are you talking about nickel-hydrogen CHEMICAL reactions? If nickel-hydrogen fusion is not involved, why does the core have to contain any nickel at all? (Surely it is packed with thermite or something?) Anyway, to deal with this latest attempt to obfuscate:

            Nickel metal doesn’t react chemically to any degree with hydrogen except at vastly higher temperatures than a resistance heater could generate. Hydrogen will slowly permeate the nickel crystalline matrix, but this process is thermally neutral. So the only exothermic chemical paths available are hydration of nickel oxide, or reduction of same. I covered exothermic hydration of metal oxides in another thread so I won’t repeat that here. So that leaves the reduction of nickel oxide in hydrogen, which requires a temperature of at least 800C, which could quite easily be achieved in a confined volume by Rossi’s ‘start-up’ electrical input.

            NiO + H2 = Ni + H2O -13 MJ / kmol @800C. The molar mass of NiO is c. 75g/mol so 1 kmol weighs 76kg. Therefore to generate 38 Mj (lowest value calculated from spreadsheet) approx. 220 kg of NiO would be required – conclusion: FAIL.

            If you know of some even more exothermic nickel hydrogen chemistry then please enlighten me. Regarding ‘physico-chemical reactions’ (do you mean electrochemical reactions?) please specify a candidate? If you can’t then your comment is just more blather that just wastes everybody’s time.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 11:10 am

            > “please specify a candidate? If you can’t then your comment is just more blather that just wastes everybody’s time.”

            And so, if you can’t specify a candidate for a nuclear reaction that fits the evidence, does that also mean that your comment is just more blather that wastes everyone’s time?

          • jcragris

            October 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm

            It is clear that if Popeye think the E-cat is not a system implementing a LENR reaction type, the only thing he can do is to prove that it is a scam (chemical reaction or sleight of hand)
            It is too easy to answer on an exact phrase with a new question and not answer to the whole problem!!!!

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm

            No pops then you go by the energy density and rule out chemical. If experiment is not a fraud.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm

            By the way, Peter Roe-> beer
            Great points. Could not have done better myself.

            Peter 1, Pops/MY 0

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm

            > “It is clear that if Popeye think the E-cat is not a system implementing a LENR reaction type, the only thing he can do is to prove that it is a scam”

            The only thing I can do to accomplish what? If you mean that’s the only way to convince believers it’s not LENR, I don’t honestly think it’s possible. Believers simply move their criteria so that Rossi always meets them.

            Is no one bothered by the fact that in January he claimed to produce 12 kW, ignited by less than 2 kW, and sustained by 400W (or zero), and now that he has been persuaded not to use steam to make his claim, he is only claiming 3 or 4 kW ignited by almost 3 kW in a device 3 times as heavy? And *still* there are obvious problems with the experiment, pointed out by his advocates.

            All I’m arguing is that Rossi has not provided evidence to back up his claims, and that until he does, most of the world will ignore him. He’s made the claims. He should do the proving.

            To be sure, if it’s a scam, I doubt that he wants the attention of the world. Just enough attention from true believers to catch the interest of a few people with deep pockets, and shallow sense.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm

            LCD> “No pops then you go by the energy density and rule out chemical. If experiment is not a fraud.”

            That’s what we’re doing. A kg or two of chemical fuel can give all the energy that’s been claimed, and the thing weighs 80 kg empty. People don’t even seem to know if there are fins underneath the core, let alone some source of chemical energy.

            But it doesn’t seem to be enough to show that the energy density isn’t even close to the best chemical energy density.

            There seems to be a double standard. People are happy to believe in some completely undefined, unexplained nuclear reaction, but insist that if it’s chemical, the exact reaction has to be spelled out. Even though the energy density is consistent with either.

            For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s some kind of elaborate chemical burning scheme. I don’t think Rossi’s smart enough for that. I think there’s far less heat than claimed, because of sneaky thermocouple placement, and if there is a little heat it’s probably produced in the core. People like Mills and Patterson and Piantelli have been mining H-Ni exotherms for a long time. But they never seem to be able to generate definitive proof of heat from nuclear reactions, far less anything practical.

            But the bottom line is that until Rossi demonstrates high energy density, or nuclear byproducts, there is no reason to invoke nuclear phenomena. And with an energy density a million times higher than chemical, that should not be so hard.

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm

            popeye> “until Rossi demonstrates high energy density, or nuclear byproducts, there is no reason to invoke nuclear phenomena”

            Who cares whether it’s nuclear or not. If there is a process that ‘consumes’ (by whatever mechanism) a tiny quantity of nickel and hydrogen to produce useable amounts of energy – isn’t that enough? The physics can come later. (I’m getting a strong feeling of deja vu here, but if the ‘skeptics can post the same objection over and over ad nauseam, then perhaps others should feel free to do something similar!)

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 8:55 pm

            > “Who cares whether it’s nuclear or not.”

            Rossi does. He claims it’s nuclear for a good reason. Nuclear reactions have very high energy density. Known chemical reactions don’t. (Mills hydrinos are certainly higher, but there’s no more evidence for them than for nuclear reactions.) The difference is a factor of a million. That’s why Rossi cares that it’s nuclear.

            > “If there is a process that ‘consumes’ (by whatever mechanism) a tiny quantity of nickel and hydrogen to produce useable amounts of energy – isn’t that enough?”

            Yes. Obviously. But Rossi is in no way demonstrating that. He’s only claiming it — based on the claim that it’s nuclear. The energy density from the demo, even using the most optimistic figures does not exceed that of chemical fuel. In order to prove that the energy density is what he claims, he’d have to run it for much, much longer, like months. If it doesn’t matter what the reaction is, then after 4 hours, we have no way of knowing that there is more energy available, and the amount he’s showed us is not impressive.

            What he is trying to settle for, is that the energy density is *higher* than any known chemical fuel, so the only explanation is nuclear. *Then*, once he’s convinced people it’s nuclear, it is not necessary to run for 6 months, because people will understand that nuclear energy density is high.

            So, yes, if he actually demonstrated GJ/g energy density, or even MJ/g, or even tens of kJ/g, it wouldn’t matter what reaction produced it. But he hasn’t. He has demonstrated less than kJ/g, and we already have methods that give us that.

            That’s why it’s important that he convince people that it’s nuclear.

    • CM Edwards Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 3:46 am

      Analysis of the cold outlet thermocouple is not too complex. The maximum effective heat flux area is at best half the fitting metal area, which is only as thick as the tube wall. The cold fluid-to-wall interface between the thermocouple and the hot inlet wall is at least three times larger (likely several dozen times larger), and the cold-to-hot heat capacity flow ratio is almost 150 to 1. The difference between the reading and actual temperature would have been small, possibly below the resolution of the measurements.

      Of course, it would have been even smaller if the sensor had been thermally isolated from the tube wall in the first place.

      • Jay Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 5:02 am

        These are my thoughts as well. The temperature differential is too small to bother with. I suppose if we wanted to pick nits we could fault Rossi for not bothering to measure the heat lost through the insulation or the large amount of heat energy thrown away from the steam discharge (FD in the diagram), but that would only make the numbers that much larger in his favor.

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

          “These are my thoughts as well. The temperature differential is too small to bother with. I suppose if we wanted to pick nits we could fault Rossi for not bothering to measure the heat lost through the insulation or the large amount of heat energy thrown away from the steam discharge (FD in the diagram), but that would only make the numbers that much larger in his favor.”

          One of the things I learned from long experience with issues involving heat transfer in biological systems is that you can’t guess about temperature distributions. You can calculate them but it’s not easy.

          On the other hand it’s incredibly easy to calibrate the sensors and in fact the whole shabang. And it’s absolutely standard practice. Remember? Rossi has a humongeous “calibration” heater BUILT IN to his device. That Rossi didn’t think to use it to calibrate makes me extremely suspicious. That Lewan and the other scientists and engineers present didn’t demand it is extremely disappointing.

        • CM Edwards Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 12:28 pm

          No one has to take my word for this. The changes in cold outlet temperature over the course of the experiment are more consistent with variations in the temperature of the tapwater than with heat leakage from the hot inlet. Those variations in tapwater temperature are not accounted for in the calculations, though, and without temperature data from the hot side outlet, they probably can’t be. That’s easily up to half a degree of error.

          The omission of hot side outlet temperatures is the most aggregious shortfall in this measurement, not the thermocouple placements.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 14, 2011 at 6:01 pm

            CM Edwards> “The omission of hot side outlet temperatures is the most aggregious shortfall in this measurement, not the thermocouple placements.”

            I agree with you that its important but I would say the worst shortfall in this experiment was its early termination. Stopping the experiment after 4 hours, when he claims it can run for 4400 hours (six months), makes his claim more than a 1000 times greater than his demonstration. Also stating the reactor core is 1/3 of 20x20x1, but showing us a box at least 20x20x4 means his claimed core size is 1/10th what he demonstrated. This further exaggerates his claim to more than 10,000 times what he demonstrates. That is what is egregious.

      • popeye Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 10:19 am

        > “The difference between the reading and actual temperature would have been small, possibly below the resolution of the measurements.”

        I don’t buy it. There is no reason to assume the temperature of the exchanger metal is the same as the water temperature even in contact with the water. The water is flowing, and heat is being transferred from the exchanger to the water. That means the exchanger is *hotter* that the water. How much hotter is too complicated to guess.

        And there has to be a gradient between the hot water contact to the steam contact, which are presumably tens of degrees different in temperature. The probe seems to be quite far from the water contact, essentially on the bulk of the exchanger. Your argument doesn’t convince me the difference is small.

        Most importantly, there is no need for this. Temperature measurement is not complicated. That Rossi does it in a way that is questionable (in his favor), without calibration, when he already knows his audience is skeptical of his claims, destroys the credibility of the demo.

        • jcragris Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm

          from Popeye: That means the exchanger is *hotter* that the water.
          Totally false!
          The purpose of an exchanger is not to warm himself, but to transfer heat from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by minimizing the heat loss on its outer parts.
          The only hot parts are the input and output of the primary circuit and if the exchanger is well built these parts are isolated from the body of the exchanger.
          That’s why Rossi has always said that the placement of two thermocouples on the inlet and outlet of the secondary circuit were not a problem.
          This is confirmed by Higgins!

          • CM Edwards

            October 14, 2011 at 2:43 pm

            Well, hand-waved by Higgins. But I agree. It is not difficult to confirm that the temperature gradient of interest – that across the fitting wall of the cold side outlet – should be on the rough order of 500 times less than the total gradient across the hot inlet and cold outlet. That’s the worst case for the configuration shown. The wall will be warmer than the fluid, but not by more than a few tenths of a degree.

            The setup is error prone for other reasons. (Questionable reasons, too. Why sample it only every half hour? Were they short a data recorder? Did the tech have too much coffee? Was the bathroom on the other side of the plant?) And it obviously still did not address the source of the heat. But there is heat. The error due to thermocouple placement alone is not sufficiently large to account for it.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm

            Following your arguments here boys and all of you make compelling cases. I was leaning with pops but jc’s last comment brought me back the other way. You would not build a commercial of the shelf heat exchanger without thermal isolation like that.
            Easy enough to validate.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

            I think ultimately excess heat was shown. Fraud or not is the question. And then of course energy/power density would be the next question if not fraud.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm

            jcragris> “from Popeye: That means the exchanger is *hotter* that the water.”

            > “Totally false!”

            And yet heat is transferred to the water from the exchanger. Isn’t there a law about that, or are LENR believers exempt from the laws of thermodynamics?

            > “The purpose of an exchanger is not to warm himself, but to transfer heat from the primary circuit to the secondary circuit by minimizing the heat loss on its outer parts.
            The only hot parts are the input and output of the primary circuit and if the exchanger is well built these parts are isolated from the body of the exchanger.”

            There is a metal link between the functional exchanger and the contact point for the probe, and metal is a good conductor of heat, not an insulator.

            > “That’s why Rossi has always said that the placement of two thermocouples on the inlet and outlet of the secondary circuit were not a problem.”

            But the purpose of a demo is so that we don’t have to take Rossi’s word for it. If we just accepted what Rossi said, there’d be no need for demos.

            > “This is confirmed by Higgins!”

            That’s characteristic of a believer’s mindset. If you call that “confirmed”, I have a bridge to sell you. Higgins was guessing. Nothing more.

            Confirming would be to take the same heat exchanger, input steam at the same rate, and flow water through at the same rate, and measure the temperature difference between the point Rossi used and the actual flowing water.

            That’s what Rossi thinks skeptics should do. But he’s already set up for it. He has the exchanger, he can make the steam. It would be a short demo for him to show the temperature difference is small. Why doesn’t he invite Krivit and a scientific advisor of Krivit’s choosing to observe such a demonstration to put the question of thermocouple placement to rest?

            People are surprised that skeptics bother to participate in discussions about the ecat. How much more unlikely is it that they would take the time to do experiments to test his claims, when he is not willing to do it himself.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 4:14 pm

            > “It is not difficult to confirm that the temperature gradient of interest – that across the fitting wall of the cold side outlet – should be on the rough order of 500 times less than the total gradient across the hot inlet and cold outlet.”

            It’s not difficult experimentally, but I’m not convinced by your guess. To look at the photos, the TC seems to be placed pretty far from the hose, and there is a lot of bulk metal connecting it to the steam inlet.

            Rossi doesn’t even use symmetric placement. The cold side TC is much closer to the hose than the hot side TC. Why would that be?

            > “The wall will be warmer than the fluid, but not by more than a few tenths of a degree.”

            You’re just guessing.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm

            > “You would not build a commercial of the shelf heat exchanger without thermal isolation like that.”

            The entire exchanger can be wrapped in insulation, as Rossi did, meaning thermal isolation between the outlet fitting and the exchanger is not necessary.

            > “Easy enough to validate.”

            That’s the point. Rossi could have validated his placement, and still could, but he hasn’t.

            More importantly, he could have placed the probes a few inches down the rubber hose in the water, and avoided this whole discussion. I think he was after two things with his placement. First, a bias in delta T in his favour, and second erratic temperature measurements to avoid identification of a systematic bias. The small delta T ensured by the high flow rate helped to make the bias more significant.

          • CM Edwards

            October 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm

            “Higgins was guessing.”
            “You’re just guessing.”

            I’ve been guessing since my first post here. However, in this particular case we’re just talking about a tube wall thermocouple on a brass fitting. The mystery is not profound.

          • LCD

            October 15, 2011 at 4:35 am

            Popeye what we can’t engineer a thermal gradient now?

      • Jay2011 Reply

        October 15, 2011 at 4:33 am

        CM,

        My first thought here was that no amount of post-experimental analysis can substitute for good data. The thermocouple should have been downstream, in the water, and the entire heat exchanger needed to be calibrated, both for water and steam. Because if one assumes that the eCat ultimately gets filled (Rossi said this takes a couple hours), then hot water will come out the top as well as steam. The heat exchanger will behave differently to both.

        I’m not certain I understand your statement that the modeling is trivial and the effect of thermocouple placement is small. There’s quite a bit of debate on this topic on vortex as well.

        Here’s a link to what I think is being described at the heat exchanger input manifold:

        http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111014_manifold_001.jpg

        Conceptually it’s simple, but one doesn’t know how well the thermocouple is thermally lagged to the brass pipe, nor where it is lagged. The air temperature on the other side, which will be hot since the entire thing is wrapped in insulation, can also affect the thermocouple reading. The temperature offsets may be different for water and steam. I looked into this a little for fun, and because I thought I might get some useful answers out (although it still wouldn’t make up for the lack of data). But I’ve concluded that it’s not trivial at all and the effect may not be that small. I don’t claim to be the expert Higgins is, or that some of the other vortex folks are. But I’ve done some heat modeling in the past. It’s only simple in highly idealized situations. The vortex folks do not seem to be in agreement with themselves or HIggins either. It’s an interesting technical side debate, but I don’t think it will settle anything one way or the other.

        Moreover, the heat exchanger readings are not consistent with the primary flow rate Lewans measured of 0.9 g/s. In fact, they are way off if there is a mixture of both water and steam coming out (it seems like we can never escape this question of water/steam ratio). And even more importantly, as John has said, the experiment needed to run longer even if the heat exchanger data were irrefutable.

        I’ve tried to be as open minded as I could on this issue. But I always come back to this: the experiment was poorly executed and did not support the major claim on the table, self-sustaining non-chemical energy. I hope Rossi can come up with something better at the end of the month.

        jay2011 (sorry to the original Jay for the name confusion)

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      Maryyugo,

      I really don’t think your “dodgy instrumentation” theory holds up. The people present reported hot to the hand equipment and the sound of boiling water. That suggests either a genuine phenomenon or a scam (a difficult scam) involving either the heating of water by other means OR the creation of “boiling” effects by other means (it would I guess be theoretically possible to say have a thin outer layer of the machine heated to create the “hot to the hand” effect and the sound/vibration could be created by electrical means.

      Unless he has somehow created an ersatz “boiling experience” for the people present, I think we can rule out tampered-with instrumentation.

      I think the choice is between genuine and secret heater.

      • popeye Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        > “The people present reported hot to the hand equipment and the sound of boiling water. ”

        So this is what believers are reduced to? This is somehow evidence of nuclear reactions; of energy density millions of times higher than chemical?

        • RERT Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:23 pm

          The energy density (actually power density for this purpose) is what it is for a new phenomenon – it doesn’t have to be any particular multiple of chemical sources, just big enough to be interesting. You can only make the snide remark you do if you know what reactions are happening with what frequency – in which case I would start scribbling that peer-reviewed paper if I were you.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 7:28 pm

            > “it doesn’t have to be any particular multiple of chemical sources, just big enough to be interesting.”

            Right. The argument goes, it’s not. If the energy density doesn’t exceed chemical energy density, it’s not evidence for something other than chemistry.

            > “You can only make the snide remark you do if you know what reactions are happening with what frequency”

            Doesn’t this contradict your first sentence? I thought you were giving me permission to make snide remarks if the energy density is not big enough. His is lower than that of firewood (so nicely put by someone else).

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 6:21 pm

        Daniel, when you touch something, the sensation of heat you feel depends not only on the temp of the item, but also on the material’s thermal conductivity and thermal mass. For example you would find it very painful to touch a large mass of heated copper at moderately elevated temp. On the other hand, the special ceramic material used in the space shuttle thermal tiles can be held in the hand when it is white hot, due to its very low thermal conductivity. http://www.free-photos.biz/photographs/architecture/buildings/133881_tpscube.php My point is that feeling the temp with your hand is very subjective and should count very little toward validating Rossi’s claim.

        Bear in mind, even if we accept all of Rossi’s data without question, his CLAIM for energy density exceeds his DEMONSTRATION by more than ten thousand times.

  4. Sojourner Soo Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 12:56 am

    When they go on the market, buy one and carry out all the tests you want, in the manner you want, using the equipment you want, to your heart’s content. The rest of us non-physicists are more interested in the views of scientists who actually use their real names. At least, I am.

    • maryyugo Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 2:18 am

      Yah shoore. I’m certain homeopathy is all the more credible to you because Brian Josephson writes under his real name not to mention his Nobel prize. You don’t really think a fusion reactor is going on the market in a civilized country without government approval and thorough testing do you? You think they can do that in a week or two? On Rossi’s humongous “megawatt” kludge? In the US, he’d never be allowed to start it up if he told anyone in a position of authority that it was “nuclear” power.

      • Sojourner Soo Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 5:23 am

        No. I’m not a homeopathic believer. As for the E-Cat, too many physicists have already tested it for radioactive waste. There isn’t any. And what “civilized” country are you referring to? The USA? Now, that IS funny. The land where 50% of the population believes the planet is only 2 000 years old? You crack me up. LOL

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:56 am

          No radioactivity? Tell me Soo, what’s the lead shielding for?

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 11:10 am

            No RESIDUAL radioactivity, mary, low level gamma is supposedly present during operation. You have been dumping your repetitive negative comments here for some time and I am absolutely sure you are aware of these facts, so your motivation, if you are not paid to do it as you claim, is obscure to say the least.

            And please don’t react by saying how ‘amusing’ the antics of the ‘believers’ are, or how much ‘fun’ you find all this. Anyone who sat behind their computer screen spending day after day snickering for no apparent reason would need some serious help.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm

            Mary: I can’t answer your question about radioactive waste except to quote the international patent, which says on page 7: “15 the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials.” I would like a scientist/physicist to tell me why this in not possible. The lack of radioactive waste seems to be a huge sticking point in this whole debate over the reality of the “LENR.”

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm

            Sojurner Soo – the proposed theory is that a stable isotope of nickel combines with a proton (hydrogen nucleus) and is thereby transmuted to an unstable copper isotope, which then in turn decays to (another) stable isotope of nickel while emitting energy (gamma photons that are supposedly absorbed by the nickel to generate heat). Because the unstable copper isotope has a short ‘half life’, it all decays back to nickel very quickly (minutes). There are a number of holes in this theory and (as far as I know) no direct supporting evidence for it, but – well – that is the theory! Result – nothing radioactive left over.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm

            Thanks, Peter. I’d read that. More please. I live near the Sudbury Basin, allegedly created by a huge meteorite striking there 1.8 Billion years ago. The Sudbury Basin contains nickel and copper in great abundance, so I’m naturally interested in this theory. The impact from the meteorite allegedly allowed a rich seam of nickel-copper ore to rise through the Earth’s crust around the rim of the crater. I understand that many believe the Earth’s core is largely nickel and iron. I’d like to know why the Rossi theory is considered impossible, given that his reactor contains nickel, copper, and iron. What are the main objections, in other words?

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm

            >There are a number of holes in this theory

            First and foremost the absence of any gamma rays detected in the January demo (when the observers actually did write reports). In Mauro Villa’s report, he says that the number of gamma rays expected from the heat claimed is so huge that they could not possibly escape detection. And that even if the entire cylinder had been made of lead, detectable gamma-ray signal would have been observable outside the ecat.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm

            Popeye: What about the boron? According to my research, boron is often used to control fission in nuclear reactors as a neutron-capturing substance. Is this why Rossi uses it? Humour me, please. I’m innately curious about physics, even if utterly incompetent.

        • David Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 9:15 am

          Soo, I am wondering where you have gathered that fact about the US. You are free to have disdain for us and it pleases me greatly that you show it with comments that contain such sage wisdom. Yes, we are a backward people but alas we suffer from the genes our ancestors left us with…

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm

            David: I gleaned the information about American beliefs about creationism from the following article. There are others, however, which are likely more statistically rigorous.

            http://www.science20.com/genomicron/blog/acceptance_of_evolution_in_canada

            “The US poll referred to above (by CBS) indicates that 53% of respondents believe that life was created in its current form within the past 10,000 years by God, 23% accept a form of evolution guided by God, and 17% believe in a strictly natural evolutionary account.”

            As for Mary’s contention that the USA will never allow Rossi’s 1 MW plant into the US, that’s rather good news for me. I hope the USA stays entirely out of this picture, and that some other country, like Canada, jumps in with oodles of cash. I should write to Kevin O’Leary and suggest the Dragon’s Den group start considering the E-Cat for investment purposes. :)

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm

            > “I’m an atheist, popeye.”

            Congratulations.

            > “They will work to keep the USA from utilizing Rossi’s technology, in the same way they convinced Bush to stop stem cell research.”

            I very much doubt that. Rossi’s claimed technology doesn’t conflict with any religious ideas that I can think of. I suspect the tea partiers are far more likely to support things nuclear, than the more liberal, atheist types, who have an irrational fear of things nuclear, because it’s unnatural.

            > “Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, I’m afraid.”

            We agree on something. But civilization should tolerate ignorance too.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm

            @ popeye: Regarding your comment about the Tea Party. You are aware are you not that its political members are funded largely by the fossil fuel industry and that the movement itself was started and funded by the Koch Brothers, and still is? So, you would be very wrong there. The Tea Partiers will be the largest instrument of organized opposition to the introduction of Rossi’s technology in the USA. And that is a social fact. As much as I know very little about nuclear physics, I can state with near certainty that you, in turn, know very little about politics. Unless, you’re just spreading more nonsensical propaganda?

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm

            > “started and funded by the Koch Brothers, and still is? So, you would be very wrong there. The Tea Partiers will be the largest instrument of organized opposition to the introduction of Rossi’s technology in the USA.”

            I am aware of the Kochs’ role, but that doesn’t mean the members will defend oil in the face of much much cheaper energy. The members (as all republicans) are far more likely to support nuclear power than democrats, in spite of Kochs’ interests. For the moment, fossil fuels are still the cheapest, and so the Kochs have it easy. I’m pretty sure tea partiers would be strong supporters any technology that allowed energy gluttony, and freedom from dependence on the middle east.

            > “And that is a social fact. ”

            You don’t know what a “fact” is.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 6:16 pm

            Popeye: Again, mere speculation. You don’t know what a “social fact” is. And, I most definitely know what a “fact” is.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 10:32 am

          > “The land where 50% of the population believes the planet is only 2 000 years old? You crack me up.”

          Not 2000. 6000! Or else, when did Moses live? And not half, but far too many.

          Half don’t accept evolution, but only part of that half are young-earth creationists. For religious reasons.

          Religious beliefs often contradict scientific evidence, but I think are nevertheless compatible with the principles of civilization.

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 3:41 pm

            Yes, people often seem to continue to hold fixed beliefs, even when the available evidence begins to point firmly in another direction.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm

            I’m an atheist, popeye. People who believe in skydaddies are, as Mary suggested, far too afraid of science. They will work to keep the USA from utilizing Rossi’s technology, in the same way they convinced Bush to stop stem cell research. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, I’m afraid. That’s how I see it, anyway.

    • popeye Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 2:45 am

      Soo> “The rest of us non-physicists are more interested in the views of scientists who actually use their real names.”

      You’re obviously free to suit yourself, if you don’t understand the arguments, but I didn’t notice any loss of confidence on your part when Krivit trotted out his named skeptics.

      I’m not interested in making arguments that depend on authority, and I think that arguments that depend on logic are more persuasive anyway, as long as they can be understood. In the case of measuring heat from an ecat, the arguments require very little technical background. And for the two arguments I made against Higgins, virtually none.

      1.
      It should be clear to anyone, physicist and non-physicist alike, that if you want to measure water temperature, the best way is to put the probe in the water, and that it is a bad idea to put it on the bulk metal of a heat exchanger between the water outlet and the steam inlet. The question of how big the correction is *should not be necessary*. Everyone can agree on that.

      So, when Rossi does something that blindingly stupid, you should be suspicious. When that mistake is compounded by the completely unnecessary high flow rate in the secondary flow, you should be nearly convinced that he is trying to pull a fast one. Why use a flow rate that gives a 4 or 5 degree temperature difference when the temperature measurement fluctuates erratically by a degree or more, and the accuracy is on the same order? A simple decrease in the flow rate could increase the temperature change by a factor of 10 or more to 40 or 50 degrees, and then small errors would be far less important. It’s not difficult to *reduce* the flow rate.

      2.
      You only have to be capable of shopping to realize that a 8-kg portable propane shower can do the same thing that Rossi’s 80-kg ecat allegedly did in his demo. That doesn’t mean he’s burning propane, but it should make it obvious that the results alone do not require any new physics to explain.

      Energy densities can be looked up on wikipedia, and Rossi is claiming energy densities one million times higher than any chemical fuel. If his claim is valid, it should not be too much to ask that he at least *exceed* chemical energy density, even including the mass of the entire device.

      When he does that, it won’t just be the odd Higgins singing his praises, but the world will beat a path to his door.

      • Ben Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:24 am

        Go tell Bob Higgins how odd he is Pops. Better yet, since they demand a higher level of civility on Vortex, just politely question his analysis. I would like to see what he has to say. I think it would be informative. Doing it on this form when you have an opportunity to do it to his virtual face speaks to your level of integrity.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 3:35 am

          Last time I checked, this is a public forum. And it does not have rules excluding skeptics or believers. He’s free to come over here, where not all participants are like-minded. If he has the stones.

          • Ben

            October 14, 2011 at 3:52 am

            Cute excuses Pops. Call a man out and criticize him behind his back. Nice.

          • Roger Barker

            October 14, 2011 at 4:05 am

            Ben > Cute excuses Pops. Call a man out and criticize him behind his back. Nice.

            LOL! Well said.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 5:19 am

            Very well said. Popeye is a FraidiE-Cat. :)

          • Roger Barker

            October 14, 2011 at 6:15 am

            The problem I have with these aggressive skeptics is they will never put their money where their mouth is. They will hide behind internet aliases and spout much rhetoric but when they get challenged they never front up.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 10:34 am

            Exactly what part of “public forum” do you not understand?

          • Brad Arnold

            October 14, 2011 at 11:24 am

            Critic, not skeptic popeye.

          • Tom Baccei

            October 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm

            Heads are spinning everywhere, popeye! I think your propane heater is large enough to harbor a hidden energy supply. Like say a matter/anti-matter battery. You cannot rule it out. Actually, just kidding with that.

            Even if AR heated an Olympic swimming pool to a boil with a reactor the size of a walnut, and YOU were in charge of the experimental design, Skeptics everywhere would question “How did Rossi get to the Pops, and get him to help rig the gaff?!” As you well know the only way to get skeptics to shut up, is never by a single demonstration, no matter how compelling. After all, the witnesses, and organizers may well have been in on it. You need REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS, which means that scientific acceptance rests on learning what the “secret sauce” is. So, I say, give him a patent, which would really call his bluff. Do I think that will ever happen? No! Because supposed skeptics, such as you and Mary Yugo, would shout it down, and because it would not be in the interest of the government to expedite the dissemination of the recipe!

            One very key element, mentioned a bit, and discussed by some as in the Blog posting by “The Funder” of Piantelli, later in this page, are the broader consequences of LENR.

            “2-any consequences of a discovery of this magnitude would have repercussions in terms of economic, political, legal and difficult to predict and control in their entirety, hence caution and a series of patents that research continues gradually are necessary to protect trade secrets as such and the authorship of the same, and to defend against many detractors who for various reasons and in various ways as is easy to see they would see their position threatened.”

            IF (and I agree that is a mighty big if) the phenomenon is real, we will all find out in due course, but the powers that be must be desperate to keep this particular technology buried because the outcome of its verification would be a profound and irreversible transformation in human affairs.

            I predict that this whole flap will fizzle out, in one way or another, not necessarily because it is bogus. If it is bogus that will happen for sure. If it is NOT bogus, it will fizzle because a rapid and very public revelation undermines the power and control of governments and very large, powerful entities. They surely have the ability and will to preempt any such development. Seeing to it that this all fizzles out, is the easiest and cleanest way to do that. In fact the seemingly endless energy shown by quite bright and competent skeptics like Pops, and MaryY would be part of the technique by which you would go about discrediting LENR.

            In my opinion, Rossi has been incredibly naive and has failed to consider the repercussions. He should publish the recipe for the “special sauce” online, in as many blogs as possible. I read one of his blogs where he said that the secret is “with a notary” and would be shared with someone unnamed if he is no longer in the picture. I would suggest to Mr. Rossi that he do far more than that, and in those circumstances the recipe be emailed, and blogged far and wide. Once the knowledge is wide spread, they will not be able to stamp it out. But ONLY if there is no potential great danger in the technology!

            Ok, Pops, I know how paranoid this seems. I agree with you that the chance that this technology is real is very, very low. In the “not real” scenario, everything fizzles, a bunch of visionaries waste a load of time and a bit of money, trying to to the impossible and, well, they have a nice hobby. In the exceedingly unlikely case where LENR is real. Suppose you are an “Energy Company” exec. — what do you do? Suppose that you were in a high government position, and this process could produce, unstable devices that could explode. What if you put a hundred pounds of nickle into one with the “special sauce” and fired her up in a major metropolitan area? Is Mr. Rossi the one to publish the information? Is he the one to supervise and manage the development of this industry?

            This episode is a fine entertainment if it is a scam or big mistake. If it is real and genuine it is truly Pandora’s box, and must be opened very carefully! I hope that anyone reading this will understand the evolution in my point of view.
            The technical arguments have become a bit boring, and go nowhere. The broad potential effects of LENR and the possible outcome socially, culturally, financially etc.,IF GENUINE, are are well worth contemplating.

          • Peter Roe

            October 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm

            Tom Baccei>

            As you say, it seems likely that vested interest groups and corporate business controlled governments will attempt to bury or control this technology, if Rossi does not succeed in burying it himself if/when something goes wrong during the 1MW power-up. I don’t however believe that it has any ‘bomb’ potential beyond causing a steam explosion, as the nickel dust supposedly slags down if it allowed to become too hot, and ceases reacting. This would be the case regardless of the quantity involved.

            I believe that if Rossi succeeds, the technology will be initially blocked for small scale and domestic use by the invention of ‘insurmountable’ safety and certification issues. These of course would not affect energy corporations wishing to retrofit Ni-H heaters in their fuel-burning power stations, who would have no trouble getting ‘licenses’. Rossi could thus be forced to sell out to the corporations, as there would be no other market available (any technology can be arbitrarily classified as ‘sensitive’ and therefore be barred from export, e.g., to china/india/russia)

            If the ‘safety’ case against domestic boilers subsequently collapsed, energy produced by Ni-H could simply be taxed in the same way as road fuels, in order to keep nuclear generation competitive, profits up, and of course (entirely incidentally) to stuff the treasuries of the bankrupt governments of the US and europe.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm

            > “As you well know the only way to get skeptics to shut up, is never by a single demonstration, no matter how compelling.”

            Skeptics of high Tc superconductivity shut up as soon as they saw levitation at liquid nitrogen temperatures.

            Skeptics of heavier than air flight (and particularly skeptics of the Wrights) shut up as soon as they saw the 1908 Wright brothers’ demo.

            Skeptics of nuclear explosives shut up as soon as they saw the first atomic bomb. Skeptics that didn’t see the tests shut up after Hiroshima.

            Sometimes a single demo *is* enough.

            > “You need REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS, which means that scientific acceptance rests on learning what the “secret sauce” is.”

            I’m all for reproducibility, but Rossi’s claims could be reproduced until the cows come home as many labs as you like without revealing the secret catalyst. Just pass out the cores with instructions.

            > “So, I say, give him a patent, which would really call his bluff. Do I think that will ever happen? No! Because supposed skeptics, such as you and Mary Yugo, would shout it down,”

            No. Because his patent application doesn’t actually explain how someone else skilled in the art can repeat his experiment. That’s a criterion for patents, and it’s there for a reason.

            The patent office is not interested in calling his bluff, because then everyone and his dog would start bluffing similarly. And then patents would be meaningless. He’s not the first person to claim an invention. And previous inventors have somehow gone on to commercialize their ideas. Why can’t Rossi?

            > “and because it would not be in the interest of the government to expedite the dissemination of the recipe!”

            Hmm. How exactly is a technology that would reduce dependence on other countries for energy, reduce expensive pollution from deep-sea and tanker spills, and shut up an entire contingency about global warming, which threatons the economy, *not* be in the interest of the government. The mind boggles.

            “2-any consequences of a discovery of this magnitude would have repercussions in terms of economic, political, legal and difficult to predict and control in their entirety,”

            all positive as far as I can see

            > “hence caution and a series of patents that research continues gradually are necessary to protect trade secrets as such and the authorship of the same, and to defend against many detractors who for various reasons and in various ways as is easy to see they would see their position threatened.”

            The fossil fuel industry is the only significant interest that would be threatened. They are pretty successful lobbying against global warming because people don’t want to pay more to drive and heat their homes. But let them try lobbying against cars and homes that never need refuelling, and elimination of fossil fuel pollution, and *lower* energy costs, and they would find some opposition.

            > “IF (and I agree that is a mighty big if) the phenomenon is real, we will all find out in due course,”

            I thought we were gonna find out on Oct 6. My guess is Rossi will keep it going for a year or more, and we will still be arguing about it.

            > “but the powers that be must be desperate to keep this particular technology buried because the outcome of its verification would be a profound and irreversible transformation in human affairs.”

            A positive transformation.

            In 1989, when similar thoughts of abundant and clean energy were raised, it was all over the media and research labs. People were giddy with excitement. No one was desperate to bury it; Pons and Fleischmann were overnight celebrities. The claims did not stand up, and then interest disappeared.

            As for Rossi, the “powers that be” are scarcely aware of his claims. NASA is aware, but it is not exactly trying to bury it. Do you have any indication of people trying to bury it? And please don’t cite a few distracted people on irrelevant internet forums.

            > “If it is NOT bogus, it will fizzle because a rapid and very public revelation undermines the power and control of governments and very large, powerful entities.”

            I think this kind of paranoia is contradicted by any number of disruptive technological revolutions over the centuries, including the industrial revolution (coal and steam engines), the switch to cars from buggies, development of electricity, introduction of nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons, and on and on.

            1989 showed just how hungry the world is for abundant and clean energy; no powers that be could keep it down if it were real.

            > “They surely have the ability and will to preempt any such development.”

            No. They have neither.

            > “In fact the seemingly endless energy shown by quite bright and competent skeptics like Pops, and MaryY would be part of the technique by which you would go about discrediting LENR.”

            I’m flattered, but you’re delusional.

            > “In my opinion, Rossi has been incredibly naive and has failed to consider the repercussions. He should publish the recipe for the “special sauce” online, in as many blogs as possible.”

            But if it’s a fraud, this would not be in his interest. So, maybe he’s not so naive.

            > “Ok, Pops, I know how paranoid this seems.”

            You got that right.

          • Tom Baccei

            October 14, 2011 at 7:54 pm

            Pops,
            This is my FIRST lookup of your claim regarding the Wright Bros.

            Contrary to legend, the reaction of the press to the historic flight was not a deafening silence. The Dayton Evening Herald reported the flight the next day on the front page, and the Virginian-Pilot was careful to point out in a sub-headline that no balloon had been attached to the aircraft. Garbled accounts appeared on the front page of the New York Herald, but there was little follow-up ****** and many of the sporadic reports that appeared during the first two years after Kitty Hawk ridiculed the Wrights’ claim by adding facetious exaggerations to the account.****** The first full, serious, and accurate account of the Wrights in flight appeared in the January 1, 1905, ……

            TWO YEARS OF RIDICULE, POPS. Nice try, but you are full of hot air. The Oil companies overpay you!

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 8:12 pm

            I was talking about the 1908 demonstration in France. Before that, there was a lot of skepticism about the Wrights, especially in Europe. Part of this was their own fault, since they were quite secretive, disallowing photographers in the early flights, and wanted an offer on the table before they would demonstrate.

            But the single demo in France, even though short, showed such remarkable control, that all skepticism (among witnesses) vanished. As wikipedia puts it:

            “The French public was thrilled by Wilbur’s feats and flocked to the field by the thousands. The Wright brothers catapulted to world fame overnight. Former doubters issued apologies and effusive praise.”

            And don’t you agree that it would not take more than a single demonstration of the atomic bomb to make believers out of any witness?

            I’m not trying to argue against the importance of reproducibility, but some claims are really so simple and so dramatic that a single, convincing, visual demonstration should be possible.

            The claim of GJ/g energy density in a small-scale apparatus at ordinary conditions is one of those, in my opinion.

          • Tom Baccei

            October 14, 2011 at 11:01 pm

            No Popeye, you are wrong there too. The Imperial Government of Japan did not believe after the first bomb, but only after Nagisaki, and the fact that their minions WENT to Hiroshima, which by the nature of the damage WAS in itself, a repeatable experiment. The evidence persisted, you see. And as to super conductivity. The acceptance was not the result of a single experiment with something floating on a mag field, it was from instructions on how to float your own aluminum icon on such a field. How trivial it is of you to blame the Wright skeptics on their secrecy! The disappearance of skepticism was “among witnesses”, and did not, even then, extend to all the stubborn skeptics! It takes repeatable experiment to know anything scientifically. If ENERGY generation could be seen as clearly as a flying machine, Rossi’s job would of course, be much easier. I am, I must admit, new to the debate over LENR, but in the last days (yes, I too am an addict) I have looked in to the “Patterson Cell”, and the “Blacklight Energy” affairs. Too many competent people who have done experimental work on these devices have been convinced, and, as far as I can tell, all the competent skeptics base their denial on theoretical grounds. It is NOT healthy when scientists start trusting their theories more than they trust their experiments. We’ll see!

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm

        1) argument is flawed. Too many assumptions.

        2) I think we all can agree that if Rossini were to show clear proof to the world of excess heat but not significantly above chemical it would not convince anybody that he isn’t cheating.

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm

          LCD, I’m posting the following until it registers with people. Rossi’s claims exceed his demonstration by 10,000 times. This is based on his results, his claims, his data, and the most hopeful interpretations of it. TEN THOUSAND TIMES! As you say in 2), it wouldn’t convince anybody, nor should it.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm

            Yeah that’s the crux of my problem. Somebody can believe Rossi all they want but they won’t be able to convince anybody else with, “cause Rossi said so”

      • Peter Roe Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm

        “8-kg portable propane shower can do the same thing that Rossi’s 80-kg ecat” And it can do it in a small enclosed container complete with its gas bottle and oxygen supply? AND hide its exhaust fumes by somehow injecting them into the steam space without getting a backwash of steam in return? AND while not showing any weight loss from gas and oxygen consumed? Total crap.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 4:38 pm

          > “8-kg portable propane shower can do the same thing that Rossi’s 80-kg ecat” And it can do it in a small enclosed container complete with its gas bottle and oxygen supply? AND hide its exhaust fumes by somehow injecting them into the steam space without getting a backwash of steam in return? AND while not showing any weight loss from gas and oxygen consumed? Total crap.

          With another 70 kg to play with, all of those things would be easy.

          As for the weight loss, Rossi’s thing gained a kg. To me, that doesn’t strengthen his argument that there’s no weight loss; it gives a measure of the uncertainty in the measurement and/or confidence in the inspection process. An uncertainty in the range of a kg is enough to account for fuel. Moreover, if a liquid fuel were in a bladder, then as it contracted, it could be replaced by water inside small vessel with a one-way valve.

          Again, I doubt Rossi’s got the brains for really complicated deception, but if he’s really got a factor of a million to play with, then he should be able to exclude chemistry *in principle*. He hasn’t come close.

  5. Casey Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Rossi addressed the thermocouple question on his blog. He said go buy the same heat exchanger, run hot and cold water through it and measure the temperature at different points along the tube.

    • maryyugo Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 6:58 am

      That’s a really good idea except run steam through the input end and make sure your flow rates in both circuits are the same as Rossi’s. Better yet– calibrate with an electrical heater using Rossi’s setup. Rossi did that, right? Oh….

    • popeye Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 10:37 am

      What kind of a demo requires observers to go home and do experiments to understand it? It’s a demo, so why doesn’t he demonstrate.

      What’s easier? Skeptics all go home and test heat exchangers, or Rossi measures the water temperature *in the water*?

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 8:10 pm

        Come on now. It’s part of repeoducability.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm

          Measuring temperature is not exactly the goal of this research. We should be past that. But if he wants to give me an ecat core to test, I’m all for testing reproducibility.

  6. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Morning everybody,
    Now who shall I take more notice of, Bob Higgins
    Motorola Solutions plus two representatives from the Italian Confindustria. all of whom seem to believe Rossi has the goods, or a group of people who’s sole purpose in life seems to be to doubt all possible advances not backed by some administration and attack aggressively any open-mindedness.

    In reply to maryyago’s attack on something else without fair research, but a closed-minded personal opinion.
    Because the Placebo effect is proven science, anything that uses it such as Homeopathy is likely to show the effect regardless of any intrinsic merit to the treatment itself, easily shown if only our skeptical science administrators where not closed-minded.
    As it is impossible to debate with skeptics I will of course not reply to maryyago’s reply to this comment.

    The evidence from those who attended the test is slowly mounting, there does not seem, so far to be any cries of fraud, cheat etc. but lots of encouragement to Rossi with statements like—-
    his is a physics shattering breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period. I am personally excited by the results and data from the experiment.—-
    The attacks on University’s and the administration seems to be rightly growing.
    If Rossi succeeds, where science fails, the World of academia will be further exposed, in its true colours of closed-minded incompetence.

    • popeye Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 10:44 am

      > “The evidence from those who attended the test is slowly mounting,”

      That’s the problem, isn’t it. He’s claiming kilowatts of power, and GJ/g energy density, and everyone was expecting a definitive and immediately convincing demo, and a week later, after agonizing analysis, the “evidence is slowly mounting” in the perception of the believers.

      If his claims were true, evidence would not mount *after the demo*. It would be simply obvious.

      • georgehants Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 11:02 am

        popeye,
        If you took a working E-CAT and shoved it up the a*** of most skeptics they would convince themselves it was an effect of last nights curry.
        It has only been the skeptics from the beginning arguing, Rossi said wait until October.

        • timycelyn Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm

          ROFLOL!!

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm

          A rather vulgar remark from someone who often questions other poster’s decorum.

  7. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Defkalion are getting their own back on the skeptics by reopening their forum for them to all spend time ranting their doubting Thomas messages at a brick wall.

  8. AB Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Mr Higgins has done some really nice work there. It is yet another analysis that confirms large excess heat being produced in the e-cat.

    Chemical fuels could not be excluded for the October 6 demo, but let’s not forget previous demos. According to Alan Fletcher’s excellent in-depth analysis, the February private demo with Prof. Levi makes chemical fuels very unlikely.
    More info here: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php

  9. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 8:30 am

    From Facebook
    Harry Veeder
    google translation:
    Sven Kullander, Professor of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, chairman of the Royal Academy of Sciences Energy Committee

    But maybe all these planned large-scale facilities to competition of small reactors that could be every man and woman were property. The cold fusion has been developed recently in Bologna can be housed in an apparatus which is not much bigger than a coffee maker and generating energy only with a few teaspoons of nickel powder.
    An intensive discussion on the net have questioned the experiment in Bologna mainly by it can not be explained by the established nuclear physics theory. It has also been speculated that the derivative produced heat energy must have been greatly overestimated mainly by an overestimation of the buildup of steam. At the lecture, these issues will be treated in order to gain a better understanding of the experiment in Bologna. “

    • LCD Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Completely discounts fraud. I guess I’m a bit shocked, he has to know something else.
      Sven’s no fool.

      • popeye Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm

        Well it makes his participation in a fraud unlikely, but that was never seriously considered anyway.

        But where are the bogeymen from the powers that be shutting him up. Surely they can’t allow such a seminar in a legitimate university…

  10. David Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 8:55 am

    We of the unwashed masses will tend to believe an expert who has seen first hand and put his reputation on the line rather than an unidentified pseudo expert who claims to see with the power of the Amazing Karnak.
    Those who will not be convinced are of course free to doubt. When they hold themselves as the intellectually elite it becomes all the more humorous.
    I am enjoying this drama as it unfolds.

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm

      According to the experts you are willing to believe and according to Rossi:

      Rossi Claims: 1000 Units of heat from a 1 Unit box

      Rossi has Demonstrated: 1 Unit of heat from a 10 unit box.

      His claim, therefore, exceeds his demonstration by a factor of 10,000 times! I can’t understand why the unwashed masses find that compelling?

    • Jay2011 Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm

      Hi all,

      I’ve been biting my tongue, but I’m going to stand up and side with John on this one. There are multiple arguments going on here. Some are technical in nature and some are meta arguments. I have an opinion on both counts, but in this post I want to address the meta argument that I’ve seen repeatedly. This argument, boiled down, says “how can all the scientists who’ve witnessed Rossi’s demonstrations be wrong?”

      In the beginning I also found this argument somewhat compelling, but I no longer do so for several reasons: 1) these scientists were not a random sampling but were hand selected. Some more outspoken witnesses, including Celani and Krivit (who is not a scientist) were not invited back; 2) the scientists have not been that outspoken on this latest demo. Some have said nothing, some have made some positive but fairly noncommittal responses. No one has come out with an unequivocal endorsement; 3) being a PhD scientist does not mean one is an expert in calorimetry. The initial Rossi demonstrations relied critically on the measurement of steam heat. The fact that none of the scientists present asked for either a steam quality measurement or a steam calorimetry measurement, attests to this; 4) The scientists present are nearly as hand-tied as we are in cyberspace when it comes to being more than passive observers. They witnessed no calibrations, no cross-checks on sensor measurements, a limited set of non-redundant sensor outputs, no control experiments, etc. Just a few suggestive measurements that were not even internally consistent. They did not see how the sensors were mounted or the insides of the apparatus. They are not in a much better position than we are to make informed judgments. Not to mention that the big eCat is a very big box, but the excess energy seen, even if one takes the more optimistic Tout measurement instead of the more conservative estimates from T2 and the measured flow rate of 0.9 g/s, still amounts to less energy density than firewood.

      It’s easy to have an opinion on this, especially if no money is at stake. But I’m afraid we’re going to have to wait for a more compelling demonstration to give any opinion much weight at this time.

      The other Jay

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm

        Excellent Points. If the purpose of the demonstration was to convince people, the room should have been filled with specialists in electrical power and calorimetry, chosen specifically because they were skeptical of Rossi’s claims. They should have had free reign, instead of being reprimanded for touching the apparatus as we saw in the last video. As you point out, these carefully selected, non specialized, and non-participating observers have not yet offered anything close to an endorsement.

        The point I’m repeating today (ad nauseum) is that Rossi’s claim to demonstration ratio is 10,000. I’m, of course, referring to his energy density claim vs his energy density demonstration which as you point out is less than firewood! Actually its worse than this. Since Rossi has not allowed independent measurement, his demonstrated amount is really just another claim which comically leads us to the ratio actually being between his claim of capability vs his claim for the demonstration, at which point we have descended into absurdity.

        The next important date seems to be the 28th of October. I’ve followed this story since Rossi’s claim first became public in mid January and his one unwavering promise has been that he would unequivocally demonstrate the validity of his claims, before the end of October, by operating a 1 MW plant for 2 months, while allowing scientists from all over the world to make independent measurements. At this point I find it highly unlikely that he will be true to his word.

        • Jay2011 Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 7:44 pm

          I hope you are wrong about the next demo, but it’s not easy to be optimistic given past performance. I’m a bit mystified what the purpose is for these demonstrations. Rossi seems uninterested in adhering to a rigorous scientific process of experimentation. As you pointed out earlier, these are not scientific experiments. They are demonstrations, presumably to generate publicity and perhaps flush out investment.

          If funding is part of Rossi’s goal, my advice to him is to get some disciplined, qualified engineers or scientists on his team. Institutional investors are going to have to go through some rigorous scientific due diligence process. Even private investors with a penchant for high stakes gambling may rely on some engineering/science advisors. And most scientists will be dismayed at the lack of rigor in these demonstrations. I don’t think many would put their reputations on the line, and their client’s money on the line, to make a clear endorsement based upon the publicly available information. If I were a consultant to an investor, the best I could say would be “this is a bold and exciting claim, but it has not yet been compellingly and rigorously demonstrated, at least, not in public. If you are interested to proceed in investing, my advice would be to insist on a more convincing private demonstration and tie investment to some clearly demonstrable milestones.” I think most scientist would say the same. Unless Rossi already has the funding he needs to proceed, he should understand this and improve his experimental methodology accordingly.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 14, 2011 at 9:28 pm

            About finance, Rossi’s claims are erratic and inconsistent. He has said, at times, that he is well financed and in no need of funds, and then later that he had to sell his house to keep going. He adamantly insists that he has received no funding from anyone, but was openly contradicted by an Ampenergo representative. Publicly he has admitted to the failure of two major business deals. At this point, what’s true and what isn’t is pure speculation.

            I’m not sure why I find Rossi’s saga so interesting. I suppose at first it was the tantalizing possibility of cheap clean energy and discussing the effects it could have on the economy. Along the way, overt interest by a few scientists bolstered the credibility and maintained my interest. Then, after the disappointment of the Oct.6 demonstration, the entertainment has been watching how enthusiasts try to explain away the ever mounting list of inconsistencies and inadequacies in the demonstration. I suspect the story is coming to a close soon.

            You say you hope I’m wrong about the next demo. I hope so too!

  11. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 8:56 am

    From Facebook
    Loıd Ǝddǝsnıƃ I heard yesterday a radio interview with Matz Lewan (NyTeknik). Rossi looks absolutetely punctual with the scheduled plans. After next 28th october test, some devices will be sent to Uppsala and Bologna to make better measurements, if everything will be ok they will put their stamp on the reactor. Watch and hope!

    • David Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 9:08 am

      There will be those, no doubt, who will then claim that Uppsala and Bologna are in on this nefarious scam…

  12. Haldor Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 10:00 am

    What I do not understand is the FACT that at least 11 but probably many more tests have been made, where outsiders (being either reporters or scientists) not on Rossi’s payroll were attending and none of them have noticed a fraud or a secret device causing the E-Cat to produce heat.
    More strange is that more and more people have gathered at 6th October test and who were there before and still they haven’t spoken out in any way against the E-Cat or Rossi.
    Furthermore that actually it is possible that a LENR between NI-H is possible and if it happens it will cause excess energy when the Nickel is transmutated to Copper. (Don’t ask me details I just read this somewhere on a scientific site.)
    Knowing this all I am convinced something is producing heat in the E-Cat, the question is how exactly this is done.
    So it is either a LENR or it is a fraud.
    But if it is fraud Andrea Rossi got a PHD from James Randi on how to fool people over and over again without being detected.

    Too many people are involved now and the more people involved into a scam/fraud it is becoming less and less possible.

    Focardi is also still there and this man is very persistent in his behaviour, he was present at all tests and why would he do this if there was something sinister going on. Simply put with Focardi being there a fraud is even more unlikely.

    • popeye Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 10:50 am

      > “What I do not understand is the FACT that at least 11 but probably many more tests have been made, where outsiders (being either reporters or scientists) not on Rossi’s payroll were attending and none of them have noticed a fraud or a secret device causing the E-Cat to produce heat.”

      You are surprised by this, but not by the fact that after 11 demos, he still does not have definitive evidence, even according to many of his advocates? When his claims should be easy to prove.

      > “More strange is that more and more people have gathered at 6th October test and who were there before and still they haven’t spoken out in any way against the E-Cat or Rossi.”

      The outsiders are all there by invitation. That should tell you something. Krivit, you might have noticed, was *not* at the Oct 6 demo.

      > “Too many people are involved now and the more people involved into a scam/fraud it is becoming less and less possible.”

      There are far more precedents for large-scale frauds and scams than there are for convincing H-Ni LENR (none).

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm

        Pop>There are far more precedents for large-scale frauds and scams than there are for convincing H-Ni LENR (none).

        LENR?
        Piantelli is in on it too Popeye. So is NASA and Bushnell and Un of Upsala (three scientists from there, must all be dating the same girl and drinking the same water). Don’t get me started on Levi, Focardi, Bianchini, and Celanti. Fraud or Massive Mass delusion has got to be the explanation.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm

          I said convincing demos, not unreproducible, experimental claims. Piantelli’s claims have scarcely been published, and those that have have been challenged in refereed literature. If there were convincing demos from any of those people, Rossi would have nothing left to claim, and it would be on the cover of Science and Nature.

          • georgehants

            October 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm

            popeye,
            “refereed literature.” “and it would be on the cover of Science and Nature.”
            popeye we are trying to be serious on this page and find the truth, best not to get our information from closed-minded comics.
            They still think science has all the answers.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm

            hants> “They [Science and Nature] still think science has all the answers.

            Actually, they both have many many articles on dark energy and dark matter, both of which emphasize that science does *not* have all the answers.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 8:09 pm

            Has anybody tried to reproduce piantellis work and failed/succeeded?
            Plz link?

          • RERT

            October 14, 2011 at 8:42 pm

            a convincing demo of 1% excess energy wouldn’t get you onthe cover of nature (my opinion). What TF does ‘scarcely published’ mean? Seems to me rather like ‘published, but this is inconvenient to my rhetoric’.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 9:26 pm

            “Has anybody tried to reproduce piantellis work and failed/succeeded?”

            Yes. CERN did. Advocates (Krivit) will claim Piantelli defended acquired himself. It’s easy to find with google; I think Krivit links to the controversy. It’s also interesting that a few years ago, even LENR advocates like Rothwell argued against Piantelli’s claims. See the Vortex archives. Krivit was the opponent.

            But before we get into a drawn-out discussion of the quality of previous H-Ni claims, I can just modify the statement that gave rise to this, without weakening the point:

            There are far more precedents for incidents now widely accepted as large-scale frauds and scams than there are for now widely accepted demonstrations of H-Ni LENR (none).

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 7:37 pm

      Haldor>”More strange is that more and more people have gathered at 6th October test and who were there before and still they haven’t spoken out in any way against the E-Cat or Rossi.”

      What SHOULD give you pause, is that 11 scientists witnessed what you are hoping was a definitive demonstration of the most exciting scientific discovery in the history of mankind………….and no one has said barely word in support either!

      Rossi claims 10,000 times more energy than he has yet demonstrated, based on HIS OWN data and measurements.

      • RERT Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 8:49 pm

        John – I think you’ve said this a few times now, but logically the power density has nothing to do with the energy density. His energy density claim could be valid, but the process of releasing it could give power of a few kilowatts – much like the tests were designed to do. He won’t prove the energy density claim until he’s run the thing for a long time. However, that doesn’t make what has happened to date remotely remarkable or suspicious, at least from the perspective of energy density.

        • Jay2011 Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 10:32 pm

          Hi RERT. I agree, power and energy density are different, and I have no problem with the big box generating only a few KW. But the bold claim on the table was energy density, i.e. the box should be able to run for months with no external source of power. The demonstration was not consistent with the claim. That might still have been OK if the demo had at least run long enough to rule out all or most conventional sources of energy (and if the actual measurements had been more sound and self consistent). But it did not. One wouldn’t even need compressed gas, batteries or burning to create a similar demo. There are dozens of ways to produce quite a bit of chemical heat. Dissolving something with a high enthalpy of solution into water would be one way. For example, 10 kg of NaOH would produce over 10 MJ of heat. A couple other compounds that might work would be LiCl or KOH. If I were a chemist, I could probably name others.

          Not to say that such a trick is really in play. Perhaps Rossi really has something. But a good demo should be able to rule such things out. I’m reluctantly with John, here. It’s not obvious to me that Rossi even cares if his demo’s are convincing to a body of qualified scientists or not. Or maybe he simply is unaware of sound experimental practice. But I don’t think he is helping his cause.

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 10:38 pm

          RERT, You seem to understand the difference between power density and energy density, and that Power X Time = Energy, so consider this. If his test wasn’t done to demonstrate a high energy density, then what was its purpose, to demonstrate a power density of 37Watts/Kg? (3KW/80Kg) I don’t think 11 scientists would travel from all over the world to witness that when a space heater from Homedepot has a power density of 1000W/Kg!

          Seriously, Rossi’s claim from the start has been for a nuclear energy density. That is what his demonstration must show to be of any value to either the science community, the patent office, or prospective investors. By halting the demonstration after just 4 hours, he failed to do that.

          You said,”that doesn’t make what has happened to date remotely remarkable or suspicious”. — I agree that it doesn’t make what happened REMARKABLE in any way. I disagree that it was not SUSPICIOUS. Rossi held this demonstration specifically to support his claim of a device that is capable of nuclear energy densities. He then unexpectedly cut it short right when the output measured is consistent with a chemical fuel source. This is highly suspicious and explains the dearth of support from the scientists who witnessed it. If he had let it run even twice as long and let observers confirm the small dimensions he claims for the reactor core, then we would have seen something at least interesting.

          • LCD

            October 15, 2011 at 4:49 am

            Yeah energy density is the interesting thing, power density is a bonus.

          • RERT

            October 15, 2011 at 8:39 pm

            Yes, but all this amounts to saying that he hasn’t done a long enough demo yet.

            I agree.

            He has argued that he cut the demo short so that his invited guests could get home around midnight after a 9:30 a.m. start. Plausible, if you believe that his goal at the moment is to demonstrate excess energy, not energy density. He can set up another test later to extend his claims. He doesn’t have to demonstrate everything at once.

          • LCD

            October 16, 2011 at 3:34 am

            Well that’s true only because he could not or decided not to show us observers the insides of the beast. If he could have just made the case that at most there is 80 grams of unaccounted for mass that would have been a remarkable energy density even for 4 hours.

            But he didn’t.

  13. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 11:24 am

    From Facebook cannot guarantee authenticity Google translate

    http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novita-cella-piantelli-3.html#post119259719

    Good morning, I write that I have first hand information from the owner of my company is the largest funder of Prof Piantelli.
    A few days ago, my owner has traveled the United States to enter into agreements with NASA and other stakeholders, (this after a delegation of visiting NASA in Italy by the engineer went first red and then it stopped in the laboratory of Prof. Piantelli,)
    The situation is very delicate, Professor Piantelli is a scholar from the world of the very serious bisness, it gives more than twenty years studying the issue, reluctant to statements and advertising of any kind because of the seriousness of man and the scholar,
    And ‘He was the first occasion to observe the phenomenon while studying, and I can guarantee that unlike Smith he now knows the mathematical law underlying the reaction.
    The reasons for the slow pace of work and failure to publicize the results can be explained in these reasons that I try to risssumere roughly:
    1-need to ensure the stability of the reaction the absolute controllability and manageability of the reaction and to exclude risks to health and safety (this world really is time consuming)
    2-After the first positive results Prof Piantelli glimpsing the many possible applications, the possibility that similar reactions could be obtained with other transition metals, so not only with the nickel and hydrogen is exploring with the intention to test its capabilities utiltà and real, then patent protection and the possible applications, and not tax the phenomenon that underlies math and as many Sannno can not be patented to court, this is because the style of the professor is more than the researcher’s bisnessman.
    2-any consequences of a discovery of this magnitude would have repercussions in terms of economic, political, legal and difficult to predict and control in their entirety, hence caution and a series of patents that research continues gradually are necessary to protect trade secrets as such and the authorship of the same, and to defend against many detractors who for various reasons and in various ways as is easy to see they would see their position threatened.
    Prof. Piantelli, is working as a coordinator and not manually, but super-visor is always present, participating in the project’s daughter and other people, and lately he has been joined by a university scientist, studies recently gave its membership and participation, the University of Florence who should participate in funding for NASA ricerca.Alcuni members stopped a few days, and have taken note of the results and have submitted Prof Piantelli many questions and clarifications on the process, which has been able to respond very convincing and exhaustive demonstrating not only the preparation of the scientist, but above all, his knowledge of complex mathematics that underlies the physical reaction to the reaction, in fact, have offered to continue the experiments and measurements in America, on the grounds that with tools sophisticated and advanced security techniques and tools you can streamline and speed up research and get information quickly definitivi.Gli Americans would be interested in using only the discovery in the field of aerospace and military leaving the exclusive rights of the civilian industrial exploitation and commercial, to Prof. Piantelli and his team.
    The discretion of the working group was not biased in making its forecasts in the short or herald it in the long run, because it is a workingprogress he meets new research and why the application is used under various aspects of which I still can not mention (I was asked why so).

    • un passante Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      more from the same guy… the automatic translation is messy to say the least but I think you can get an idea of what he’s saying (he makes plenty of errors, the typical errors of one who is writing fast and do not check for errors). If there’s some part you find hard to understand just ask me I will try a more intelligible translation (not perfect because my english is far from perfect).

      —-

      As some of you have rightly pointed out, the prudent non-publication and publicizing the results of research Piantelli, is explained in the fact that the risk of going out with partial results and have no probative force, as well as give rise to a welter of allegations (as we are seeing in the case of Rossi) rischierrebbe to burn the credibility of Prof and worse over twenty years of work, with the risk to be passed and no longer sunken credible and worthy of attention, it seems to me that in this sense Strategy wise, however, is a low profile.
      Added to this is that the possible repercussions, political, economic, legal, are of such proportions, that my owner, capable and great entrepreneur, (maybe it is not clear that capital that can invest in this adventure, they believe stem from the many activity that has consolidated in Italy, and therefore does not have the rush to capitalize on the invention, but want to start at the right time) is excited on one side, but very scared and unprepared to handle a discovery that has a number of unexpected implications and possible applications which must be protected and safeguarded by a legal point of view from all possible detractors. and believe me it would be many and powerful, ready to make false papers to try to prove that it does not work, the scientific history of these studies has demonstrated, because the possibility of being blown back the child from the cradle are many.
      The fact true that he worked with Piantelli Focardi, Rossi and then says that, of course, Smith has given birth to ‘cat-and it works, but it is highly unlikely to know the physical and mathematical laws underlying the phenomenon, which Instead Piantelli know, that was the first to observe the phenomenon in one of his experiments have also given rise to the experiments that led up to this point.
      What appears to be fairly ascertained is that there are excesses of energy are reproducible and stable enough, and I think both Piantelli Rossi. Now the race is to those who can not be disputed, will be able to prove it first.
      Certainly in this strategy, the risk of being overtaken by Rossi or exceeded or there is other, each choice clearly involves risk, but the results are there, you just be patient.

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm

        It’s hard to tell what is true and what is not.

      • Casey Reply

        October 15, 2011 at 4:28 am

        Rossi is Italian for Smith, in case you ever wonder who Smith is.

  14. AB Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Modus operandi of our resident pseudoskeptics:

    Produce a large number of posts that contain distorted facts, half-truths, speculation presented as fact, insinuations and accusations.

    Some of these are justified, most are mere polemic. Correcting these requires more time than it takes the pseudoskeptics to produce a few more. The intent is to wear out those who object this practice and ensure that the blog always contains a large number of negative posts. Afterall, in the mind of the pseudoskeptic, the gullible believers need to be saved from their own ignorance. That they chose not reason, but raw quantity is telling.

    As for real skeptics, I have great respect for all people truly who try to understand what is really going on.

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      I think your analysis of the pseudoskeptics here is quite accurate AB.

    • Stephen Reply

      October 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      Modus operandi of any faith-based believers:

      Produce a large number of posts that contain distorted facts, half-truths, speculation presented as fact, insinuations and accusations. Eventually, introduce the concept of a higher being.

      Wear out those who object this practice and ensure that the blog always contains a large number of negative posts. Afterall, in the mind of the faith-based believer, the heretic skeptics need to be saved from their own ignorance. That they chose not godliness, but raw science is telling.

      Once you have got rid of the skeptics (they never seem to rejoin…), start a new religion and let the money roll in.

  15. Thicket Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Peter

    You said

    “Nickel metal doesn’t react chemically to any degree with hydrogen except at vastly higher temperatures than a resistance heater could generate.”

    Nickel and hydrogen certainly react at the 500 deg. C (or 1500 deg. C) that Rossi says is the reactor temperature.

    “Hydrogen will slowly permeate the nickel crystalline matrix, but this process is thermally neutral.”

    Incorrect. Hydrogen bonding to nickel is strongly exothermic. I’m not talking about chemical NiH (0.5) nickel hydride incorrectly assumed by Kullander. I’m talking about nickel metal hydride which has an approximate formula of NiH2.
    The reason it’s approximate is that the nickel hydride is in a lattice as opposed to discrete covalently bonded molecules. The nickel metal hydride reaction is reversible.

    • jcragris Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      The answer to this type of reaction has already been given several times on this site and it shows I think it would take about 600 grams of hydrogen to release this energy.
      In each E-CAT test the amount of hydrogen injected did not exceed 2 grams.
      Obviously if you think that Rossi uses something other than nickel and its isotopes and therefore only a mixture of NIH2 your hypothesis is valid but I do not think this is the topic!

      • Thicket Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 2:36 pm

        jcragris

        Determining the actual chemical heat generated by an ECat is a classic garbage in, garbage out situation. Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ 2 grams of hydrogen. No. Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ 50 grams of nickel. No. Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ that the October 6 demonstration had only one functioning reactor although there were three in the system. No.

        What I do know from personal experience is that hydrogen over nickel metal produces a lot of heat in manufacturing processes. It produces so much that precautions have to be taken to prevent reactor temperature excursions to over 1000 deg.C.

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm

          Exactly. And since Rossi won’t properly calibrate his system, we have no idea whether or not his instruments are measuring it properly. Calibration is simple and costs nothing. Not only should Rossi have done it but all those illustrious scientists and engineers who witnessed the demonstrations should have required it. To their credit, a few of them have asked about his and Rossi has always answered them tangentially and non-responsively. His usual answer is “no need”. Bullpuckey!

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 8:05 pm

            Mary again? Resist the temptation to restate your point 1000 times plz.

        • jcragris Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 9:36 pm

          from thicket: Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ 2 grams of hydrogen. No. Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ 50 grams of nickel. No. Do I accept ‘Rossi says’ that the October 6 demonstration had only one functioning reactor although there were three in the system. No.
          Not from Rossi but Lewans:
          Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The Bottle was attached,opened,closed,detached
          Total loaded:1.5 Grams
          You give me the same answer and now you say that the data verified by Lewans are also false. I do not understand your statements

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 7:09 pm

        The metal in the NiMH is exactly what? It’s not Ni so you are suggesting some other process involving Ni and H. AND you are suggesting more hydrogen. So you’re back to saying he’s cheating.

  16. Ben Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Bob Higgins mentions in the discussion over at Vortex the interest of Motorola in James Patterson’s cold fusion device, the Patterson Cell. The reason that deal fell through is not entirely clear but Bob suggests it was because Mr. Patterson wanted a bigger share of the proverbial pie than Motorola was willing to concede. He was already a wealthy man at the time so perhaps he felt he make a go of it without them.

    I have come across a Nightline segment that describes in more detail Mr. Patterson’s work. As the segment points out, the crucial ingredient in the Patterson experiments were the beads that helped facilitate the reaction. Patterson held over 100 patents and was a life long employee of Dow Chemical. His expertise in making beads for other industrial processes made him a millionaire. He had a specific recipe and process for making the beads for his Patterson Cells and they were so unique that they were extremely difficult to duplicate. His granddaughter’s husband, Jim Redding, started a company, Clean Energy Technologies (CETI), in an attempt to market Mr. Patterson’s device. I am not sure if this was before, during or after dealings with Motorola’s. However, there were technical difficulties in mass-producing the beads and it was not able to be done successfully. Unfortunately, Mr. Redding died of a heart attack at age 40 before the technical issues could be worked out. Mr. Patterson became despondent and abandoned his research and died a couple of years later. It has also been mentioned that the recipe for the process has been “lost” but I cannot confirm that. Mr. Patterson did receive patents for his work but I do not know if there is a patent for the beads.

    There are some apparent parallels between Mr. Patterson’s beads and the nickel nano powder Rossi is reported to use, in that there are rather exact specifics for its preparation and few have the expertise to reproduce it. The much discussed 60 Minutes video about the cold fusion also makes mention of the crucial nature of material preparation in experiments using palladium as well. The Italian Government lab ENEA is believed to be an expert in this field but there is no indication that have are working or have worked in assisting Rossi. If one understands the crucial nature of material preparation in successful cold fusion experimentation, it is easier to understand why there has been a problem over the last two decades in replicating the experiments. There are certainly other factors, not the least of which is the lack of a clear theoretical understanding of the whole process, but the importance of proper preparation of the metals used certainly cannot be understated. I don’t know if this was understood at all as far back as 1989.

    Below is the three-part Nightline segment covering the Patterson cell. It is interesting and informative.

    James Patterson (Nightline Part 1)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjJnx-k7-7A&feature=related

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm

      Oops! This is a four-part series and below is Part 2. Just move every part after 1 down a notch.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfVAHKhNIxA&feature=related

      • Ben Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm

        This may be an unimportant detail in the scheme of things but Mr. Patterson’s son-in-law had to die closer to 30 then 40…and it may have been from a brain aneurysm not a heart attack. Either way, he died at a relatively young age and Mr. Patterson became distraught and ultimately lost interest in his research.

    • Tom Baccei Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Heart attack. At 40. Nickle, H2O, Palladium. Patented. Just “went away” in spite of serious competent scientific verification. HMMMM. Does anybody have a “Patterson Cell” out there ?

      • Ben Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm

        More importantly, does anyone have any magic beads? Fe-fi-foe-fum I smell the blood of skepticism!

        No, this is not surreal at all.

  17. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Italian mainsream newspaper “Il Sole 24 Ore” on E-Cat.
    I do not think this is the same one as yesterday
    http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2011-10-13/fusione-fredda-sfida-continua-210440.shtml?uuid=AaIpikCE

    • un passante Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      Il sole 24 ore is the most important business newspaper in Italy. it is owned by Confindustria, the Italian employers federation.

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 7:52 pm

      The article begins with “If true” and concludes with “the E-cat effect, has not yet been subjected to any experimental verification”.

  18. D2 Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Evaluating the previous post from un passante, it seems to me Piantelli is being a lot more thoughtful and comprehensive than Rossi. I like what I hear regarding both approaches because it seems to me evidence continues to mount on multiple fronts that LENR is a real effect and more importantly will soon be a viable energy source. I also am encouraged by the thought that Piantelli is experimenting with other transition metals.

    My impression is:
    Rossi = the hare in “Tortoise and the Hare” – rushing to market as fast as possible

    Piantelli – the tortoise – slow and steady

    We’ll see who wins the race in the end.

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 5:26 pm

      If I remember, the tortoise won in that cautionary tale. Someone is claiming that the tortoise has won again, with Piantelli already having signed commercial contracts including one with NASA.

      • D2 Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 6:00 pm

        I think the jury is still out on that.

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm

        yeah is that what we should understand from that poster. I couldn’t quite make that out?

  19. arian Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm

  20. Bob K Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Focus also has new video. Unfortunately, in Italian without English subtitles.

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-test-e-cat-del-061011-nuovo.html

    • AB Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      2:20 Rossi: we have not done any tests with NASA in the US. I was invited by NASA, we had a discussion, we had a meeting and negotiations.

  21. georgehants Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    From Facebook Be careful until confirmed.
    Alex Drose
    Piantelli has signed a contract with NASA..if you believe an anonymous blogger. Can one of our Italian friends interpret this? Google doesn’t do it justice and parts of it are unclear.

    http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novita-cella-piantelli-3.html#post119259719
    Like · Comment · about an hour ago ·

    Giuliano Bettini likes this.
    Giuliano Bettini
    “Si è recato negli stati uniti per stringere accordi con la nasa” in Italian doesn’t means
    “has signed a contract with NASA” but means “he wanted to talk with NASA for possible agreements”.
    Agreements on what? (….) “they (NASA) have offered to continue the experiments and measurements in America, because with more sophisticated tools and techniques (…. ) they can speed up research and come quickly to the final results”.
    In my experience in “American” this means “Get out of here boy, and let us work”.
    39 minutes ago

    • Tony Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      Were this true, Krivit would be crowing via his website.

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm

        Piantelli has always had the option to go to NASA. If any of this is true then his achievements (enough to warrant talking to NASA) are relatively recent

  22. Burt Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Does anybody know of a site where ecat could be discussed without skeptiks taking over every discussion? OK, we’ve got the message – they are not convinced. That is OK. If we find a place to discuss ecat without skeptics telling us that we are idiots, will they leave us alone there? Or is it too much of an unacceptable itch to see us discuss as if ecat was real?

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

      Burt, and all, I have been working on site as a way to place a lot of the videos and information I have come across. It is not ready yet but I could open it up for comments if enough people were interested in such a forum. It would not have articles like there are here because I cannot produce coherent material on a regular basis, as some of you already know…LOL. In short, I cannot write them as good as Paul. As I said before, he is top-notch. I also do not want to disrespect Paul because we all come here because of what he has created.

      But at this crucial junction in perhaps the greatest discovery in hundreds of years, the constant FUD is distracting and clouds more pertinent issues. I cannot say I would limit all dissent, just that is voluminous, repetitive, illogical and suggestive of a agenda.

      Anybody interested?

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm

        Link it back to ecatnews

      • Peter Roe Reply

        October 15, 2011 at 10:04 am

        Ben – This is a great site and much of the discussion is extremely interesting, lively and of a high standard, prompted by Paul’s very topical editorial input. Unfortunately as Burt says, the level of ‘noise’ generated by maryyugo and popeye in particular, and to a lesser extent by thicket are now beginning to outweigh contributions by everyone else combined. Even those others who post here a lot (myself included!) do so largely in order to try to counter some of the crap being poured in here by the ‘skeptics’ as we still politely refer to them, although ‘wreckers’ might be a more appropriate term.

        Some points they make are valid, but of course their trick is to make these same points over and over, mixed in with volumes of irrelevant quibbles, partial truths, fake concerns, character assassination, misinformation, impractical scenarios and so on. This means hours wasted by others looking up the facts in order to counter this torrent, the alternative being to let their negativism stand unchallenged. While some of us spend more time here than we should, for two of the entities mentioned, attempting to bring sites like this down appears to be a full time job.

        Paul is obviously disinclined to bar the IPs concerned, presumably for reasons of balance, but unless some action is taken against the abusers I think the future of this blog is in danger, and an alternative forum could very soon become very desirable. If you do go ahead, I for one would welcome it.

    • georgehants Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      Ben all sites are interesting if they are open-minded.
      Anywhere away from repetitive, immature, destructive, abusive attacks would be welcome.

      • Casey Reply

        October 15, 2011 at 4:58 am

        Ask Mary which sites she has been banned from.

    • shadowhunter Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 7:09 pm

      If you find one let me know. But i do like this site for a news source. Site admin has understood that less is more regarding design. And i also enjoy reading most of the peoples comments in here, sceptics and believers. But i would suggest to Admin that you get rid of this “popeye” character. Don’t tell me you do not know that this person’s only agenda in here is to flood this site with cynical, repetitive crap. I mean this is getting ridiculous!

      • LCD Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 7:14 pm

        Okay Shadow I’m not a popeye lover but I’ll come to his defense. He’s very technically sound but extremely pessimistic. That is not grounds for getting rid of him. I mean he is at least clear on what his objections are even though he refuses to value counter objections.

        MY does repeat the same thing over and over, that does get annoying.

        Thicket just fails to qualify his posts with words like IMHO or “I think” he just states things as facts when they are clearly not.

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

          “MY does repeat the same thing over and over, that does get annoying.”

          I do that because most of the readers here just don’t seem to understand it. Perhaps if I say it louder directly into their ear?

          • RERT

            October 14, 2011 at 9:16 pm

            Influencing skills 101: when constantly repeating yourself doesn’t work, do *NOT* repeat yourself more loudly in a shriller tone….

        • shadowhunter Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

          LCD, I disagree regarding popeye. He may have some technical knowledge, but im not impressed. How can you explain the enormous amount of time and energy this guy uses on forum flooding if he is convinced that the ecat is a scam? Is he here to save people from being fooled? Think about it. Pay attention especially when new calculations from experts emerge, popeye is all over it like hair on soap flooding the thread with random negative babble. Trying as hard as he can to discredit said experts and their findings. Why would someone that is convinced this is a scam do this, LCD? I am actually amazed that you dont see this, thats why i have to go A.R on you now:

          THEY HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA! THEY ARE NOT HERE BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY GETTING FOOLED!
          ;)

          • shadowhunter

            October 14, 2011 at 8:02 pm

            “Pay attention especially when new calculations from experts emerge, popeye is all over it like hair on soap flooding the thread with random negative babble. Trying as hard as he can to discredit said experts and their findings. Why would someone that is convinced this is a scam do this, LCD?”

            Why indeed. Ok, that didnt come out as intended. Hey admin, 5 min edit is not long enough. Some of us are apparently slower than that.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 14, 2011 at 8:23 pm

            shadow, you believe that popeye has an agenda to flood this site with cynical and repetitive crap. I believe popeye is one of the most mature and logical posters here. Would you agree, therefore, that a person’s perspective has some influence on their perception? I know popeye’s posts can be lengthy, but he takes the time to repeat and address each point that a person makes and does it methodically, logically, and without vulgarity or insult. He doesn’t post as much as georgehants but you haven’t said anything about him? Could your cry to a higher power (admin) be simply desperation that your unsubstantiated beliefs are being threatened and that makes you feel uncomfortable?

            Rossi has made 2 claims. The amount of energy an ecat can produce and the amount of energy it produced in his demonstration. The difference between his two claims is a factor of 10,000. I think that fully warrants the need for skepticism and I can think of no better place to discuss it than in the comment section of an article entitled “Oct. 6 E-Cat Analysis”.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 8:35 pm

            Shadow he was probably on the hatred side of the P&F witch trials and it would hurt his pride if he found out he was wrong all this time.

            His criticisms are logical and you can’t fault a man for that. But he lost the imagination of a true scientific pioneer a long time ago, and really believes that although we have no flipping clue what dark matter nor dark energy is we know everything their is to know about qm and LENR must therefore not be real???

            When you are operating under that mindset you cannot entertain new ideas.

          • shadowhunter

            October 14, 2011 at 8:49 pm

            Mr. Dlouhy

            Yes, i agree that a persons perspective probably has alot of influence on their perception. And it is quite possible that i am wrong about him. We are all different, and respond differently to certain matters. I respect that. However, my conclusion about popeye is not based on the fact that he has never even considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe that crazy italian guy has something. It is his human right to belive what he want to belive. But what doesnt add up for me is the time and energy used for forum flooding when you never did believe any of A.R’s claims in the first place. That tells me he should have disappeared from these interest sites months ago.

            But as i said, i could of course be wrong.

          • RERT

            October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm

            LCD has it. The views of someone who believes as that mainstream scientific consensus the only possible truth has nothing positive to contribute to discussion of a phenomenom which challenges it. The forum would be better of without the noise. I just have to ignore it.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm

            > “The views of someone who believes as that mainstream scientific consensus the only possible truth”

            No one familiar with history believes that.

          • popeye

            October 14, 2011 at 9:38 pm

            > ” we know everything their is to know about qm and LENR must therefore not be real???”

            Are you really not able to comprehend the notion that what we know about nuclear physics makes LENR very unlikely, and that until strong evidence is presented, I will remain skeptical.

            I’m careful to avoid, and do not subscribe to, absolute statements of the sort you repeatedly try to ascribe to me.

        • Ransompw Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 8:37 pm

          LCD:

          Popeye is full of information, he also won’t stay on subject if you debate him. The discussion invariably morphs as he picks different sounds bites in the response to address.

          He is also somewhat like Krivit, the master of the half truth (an interesting debating tactic) as most of what he says has a kernal of truth but can also be misleading.

          For example, his propane heater comparison. It is really a silly comparison if you think about it.

          • maryyugo

            October 14, 2011 at 9:29 pm

            This is, predictably, what happens when you discuss science with a lawyer. It doesn’t work and it annoys the lawyer.

          • Ransompw

            October 14, 2011 at 10:41 pm

            You know Maryyugo, if you were a lawyer you would understand that we can and do become expert at everything. Give a lawyer an issue any issue to research and they become better then the experts. I cross exam experts all the time, they are easy pickings because they really think they know something and almost always they really know less then they think.

          • LCD

            October 14, 2011 at 11:08 pm

            Well yeah that was silly but I thought his point was not that rossi was using that but that that energy density would not be news.

            Maybe popeye buried that in a 100 line post that is too hard to digest. He does do that. I admit I can’t read everything he writes anymore, too long.

          • Ransompw

            October 14, 2011 at 11:30 pm

            LCD:

            Well true if you assume the thing doesn’t work for 6 months. So if you assume it isn’t Nuclear then yes it isn’t news. And yes, I agree Rossi hasn’t proved it is nuclear (at least to me) but isn’t that what we are speculating about. It isn’t fair for him to use that example to prove the Ecat is not News because to do so he already has to assume it isn’t going to work for as long as Rossi says. Yeah I know Rossi says. that is why I am really conflicted at this point. Let’s see what October 28 brings.

      • JMol Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 9:50 pm

        I object. A case needs a prosecutor.

        What is nonsensical? That the thrmocouple could be touching the core?
        That there could be a hidden power source?

        What I find nonsesical here at first, with all due respect is georges sort of blind optimism. Not much different than a religous fanatic. And even so, He has made good points on how could Rossi have decieved so many physicsts. So far i’ve enjoyed what each one has to add to this forum. Ive been reading it every day since june. Kudos to Admin also for the nice articles.

        If i’ve had to bet my house on the ecat story, i would place it along with the sailor.

    • maryyugo Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 7:48 pm

      “Does anybody know of a site where ecat could be discussed without skeptiks taking over every discussion? ”

      Try a psychic medium or paranormal web site. They censor critics completely.

      • Tony Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 8:13 pm

        Finally! Somewhere where you aren’t posting…

      • RERT Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm

        MY: Given the recent stats showing you posting like a deranged hamster on a treadmill, the question is entirely apt.

    • D2 Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      Burt,
      I totally agree with you but would take it one step further. Fine if you are a skeptic or a believer but personal attacks are over the line. So, note to Admin I would give then three strikes and they are out. I would of booted several of these people long ago (on both sides).

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        October 15, 2011 at 2:06 am

        Would you have booted me R2 ? I know I’ve become a rather outspoken skeptic, but you need to understand that for 9 months I’ve followed this story and was one of Rossi’s biggest supporters. Frequenting the blogs posting wonderful ideas about all the fantastic improvements in life it was going to bring. I did this based solely on his promise of an unequivocal demonstration in October. Well that didn’t happen and to be honest I feel betrayed by his false promises. I would say lets wait for the last demonstration but Rossi contends that this one was legitimate and sufficient. If no higher standard is applied to the Oct.28 test, then there is nothing really to look forward to.

  23. raul heining Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    I am becoming tired with stupid arguments from Popeye, which has not a minimum of technical knowledge and mary, but at least mary has some knowledge about measure.
    I have my doupts but that’s my nature. When you skeptic people, like Popeye and mary argument, please do it with a minimum of technical knowledge and do not say silly things only to try to put down the results of the experiment. Do not behave like Krivit.
    regards
    raul

    • LCD Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      huh? I respect your opinion Raul, but both of them are pretty technically sound. Just very very pessimistic.

  24. Ben Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Okay then. We have a starter set. We will see how it goes.

    http://e-catsite.com

    I will put a link for eCat News at the top.

    • popeye Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm

      And you were complaining about me not having the stones to face opposition…

      • Ben Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 8:49 pm

        That comment stuck in your craw did it Pops?

        I didn’t complain about it, I called YOU on it. I still haven’t seen you post your detailed criticism and snide remarks to the man that they were directed to, when is perfectly within your power to do so. That is cowardly. Your assertion that you won’t do because they have a rule against skeptics is cowardly. Skeptics post there all the time, they just do it in a way that is not blatantly offensive or an attempt to obscure and deny obvious facts. They have a honest discussion about their disagreements and presents facts and logical arguments (mostly).

        And I didn’t open my site http://e-catsite.com to comments to avoid opposition. I did it because so many people complained about a very small few constantly sucking the air out of every discussion with FUD and evidence of a hidden agenda. There are enough legitimate disagreements and areas of concern, there is no need to add to them with blatant propaganda. No good argument or discussion can come out of premises that are concrete or dishonest.

        Now, if you will excuse me, I have a site to tend. Good day sir.

        • popeye Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm

          > “I still haven’t seen you post your detailed criticism and snide remarks to the man that they were directed to, when is perfectly within your power to do so.”

          There were no snide remarks, and this site is completely public and open to both skeptics and believers. He posted on a list that declares itself for believers.

          > “That is cowardly.”

          Making your own site so you can delete opposing views isn’t?

          > “Skeptics post there all the time, they just do it in a way that is not blatantly offensive or an attempt to obscure and deny obvious facts. They have a honest discussion about their disagreements and presents facts and logical arguments (mostly).”

          Nonsense. The level of discussion there is no higher than here. In fact, I would say it is lower. There are some unbelievably stubborn and unqualified participants there, including the most prolific of the bunch.

          > “And I didn’t open my site http://e-catsite.com to comments to avoid opposition.”

          You can try to obscure that with colourful language, but that it seems to me that that is exactly what you did.

          > “I did it because so many people complained about a very small few constantly sucking the air out of every discussion with FUD and evidence of a hidden agenda.”

          Just because you can’t mount counter-arguments does not mean they are either fud or evidence of a hidden agenda.

          > “No good argument or discussion can come out of premises that are concrete or dishonest.”

          What’s wrong with concrete? And please identify dishonest premises.

  25. Thicket Reply

    October 14, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    I think a believer-only site is an excellent idea. Then believers could frolic joyfully without disturbing doubts interrupting the revelry. Without skeptics to complain about, it would be quite boring though. (:->)

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm

      Ever wonder how one bible spawned 38,000 denominations?

    • raul heining Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 8:44 pm

      very boring,
      regards
      raul

    • AB Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 8:59 pm

      Boring? Quite the contrary. Other than the occasional interesting post, the pseudoskeptics repeat the same things ad nauseum, forcing the discussion along the same narrows paths, somehow hoping to redeem the poor deluded believers. The pseudoskeptics like to view themselves as terribly important – evidently they take themselves very seriously.

      The most valuable contributions have been from people with technical knowledge who actually believe that LENR is or might be real. They take the necessary time to properly deal with this important subject and their posts are actually worth reading, if sometimes hard to spot for reasons that need not be explained further.

    • Ben Reply

      October 14, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      That’s the thing Thicket, it is not a “believers only” site. It is a “no irrational skeptics” site. See the difference?

      No, I didn’t think so.

      • Thicket Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 9:15 pm

        Ben

        Of course I see the difference, but I see things differently than you.

        And folks like you are the ones that define ‘irrational skeptics’ right? You probably only like polite skeptics who don’t think that Rossi is a total crock.

        I’m sure it doesn’t surprise you that I think some folks here are ‘irrational believers’ lacking critical thinking skills, adhering to magic and superstition. Instead of close-mindedly trying to ban them, criticise them or isolate them I have fun. I do ignore several posters, but that’s a result of abusive behaviours not because of Rossi beliefs.

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          October 15, 2011 at 2:33 am

          Ben, the irony here is that Rossi’s many contradictions, falsehoods, lack of scientific rigor, questionable past and education, and sometimes bizarre behavior, not to mention his exorbitant claims, should reasonably lead a RATIONAL person to be skeptical.

          To be a believer in the face of all this contradictory evidence would more closely fit the definition of paranoia, which is “persistent belief in the face of facts that prove otherwise”. Your site does not exclude “irrational skeptics”, but rather excludes people who are not “paranoid believers”.

      • AB Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 9:17 pm

        The polarization “believer vs skeptic” is not at the core of the issue here, because this is not about who is right or wrong, more intelligent or whatever.

        This is simply about the quality of discussion suffering due to lack of respect, careless posting and oppositional behavior. Skepticism is no excuse for this.

        • Thicket Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 9:36 pm

          AB

          To me, the lack of respect lies primarily with the Rossi-supporters. I see skeptics giving information, responding to others and discussing the severe shortcomings of Rossi’s claims. I see some Rossi supporters reacting negatively to this, showing lack of respect and being personally abusive. It’s a standard human reaction to someone you disagree with. First you try to convince them, then you become more confrontational, then you become abusive and finally you try to get rid of them or shun them. It’s very predictable. Some folks here are clearly at the “get rid of/shun them” stage.

          • JMol

            October 14, 2011 at 9:55 pm

            Agree!

          • Ransompw

            October 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm

            Sorry, I think it goes both ways.

          • Peter Roe

            October 15, 2011 at 11:05 am

            “Some folks here are clearly at the “get rid of/shun them” stage.”

            Only because they feel that perhaps enough is enough.

            And then there is the question of motives. I know that I come here for updates on the developing situation, clues which may help in deciding both how this thing works, and even about the veracity of Rossi’s claims (yes, even the ‘believers’ are aware of problems), discussion of the socioeconomic ramifications if it’s real and so on. I suspect most others here have similar motivations.

            But as far as the motives of yourself, maryyugo and thicket are concerned, you are patently not here for comparable reasons. Maryyugo and yourself have occasionally claimed that you are ‘amused’ by the goings on here. MY has also very unconvincingly claimed ‘she’ is here to save the rest of us from our folly and/or from making foolish financial investements. I don’t recall popeye bothering to justify ‘his’ interminable negativism, but he may well have done so at some point.

            The bottom line is that only a very few people now believe that you three ‘skeptics’ are here to contribute in any constructive manner to the discussion. The sheer time wasting volume of negative comments is now far in excess of anything that could be explained by such motives, leaving only the probability that you are here (and elsewhere) to carry out a deliberate agenda of swamping out real discussion.

            In short maryyugo and popeye in particular and yourself to a lesser extent, have overdone things by a massive margin, and you surely cannot be surprised by the reaction.

        • Ransompw Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 10:34 pm

          Actually, I think it has more to do with speculation, stop speculating about why you are right and whether Rossi has what he says he has and the discussion tones down and becomes more civil. In other words stop trying to tell everyone how right you are when none of us can be sure and you mellow, I have.

          • Thicket

            October 15, 2011 at 11:41 am

            Peter

            I’m certainly not surprised by the reaction. I’ve seen it a number of times, specifically on forums for Steorn, Blacklight Power and EEStor. On those three, skeptics like myself were right. Only the most rabid true believers still hold out any hope that these three have something real. What you had was some intolerant believers/true believers being incapable of accepting strong opinions that ran counter to their own. You can see it in Paul Story’s post on Steorn. While admitting that Steorn had nothing, he still holds great animosity for the skeptics that were right.

            I see the Rossi saga on this forum following a similar script. Many folks can’t tolerate strong opposing statements that run counter to their own. While most will eventually admit that Rossi has nothing, they will still resent the most vocal skeptics.

            The questioning of motives is an unfounded and cynical weapon used to try and discredit skeptics. Unless a mind-reader, folks have zero idea of motives. It’s a transparent attempt to demonize skeptics who state strong positions.

            If you look at it, skeptics make strong negative statements about Rossi and his cadre. Some believers make strong negative statements about skeptics. Basically, they’re skeptical of skeptics.

          • Peter Roe

            October 15, 2011 at 1:11 pm

            Thicket – of course you have a right to reply to my assertions about your motives and those of the two other entities I named. However, in a way you are proving my point. Here I am responding, I hope politely, and certainly long-windedly, to something else that has nothing to do with the e-cat, and is therefore nothing to do with why I am here. In other words you are successfully diverting time and effort I would rather be using to advance my understanding of what exactly is going on and whether it is likely to affect my future and that of my children.

            As you say, neither I nor anyone else can read your minds. What we can see however is a pattern – one of massive over-posting of what actually amounts to a very few good points endlessly repeated, and a great deal of garbage. I suppose it is remotely possible that you and the others are as I caricatured you elsewhere a bunch of ‘argumentative obsessive/compulsives who don’t get out enough’, but you collectively don’t come over that way. What you come over as, is a small group that is dedicated to trashing this and other similar discussions by the simple tactic of flooding out the genuine discussion with diversions of one kind or another. Your common modus operandi is similar to the point of appearing co-ordinated, and the fact that some of you are doing very similar things on other forums from which you have not yet been banned seems to support this idea.

            This may be a mis-perception, but I (and it seems a number of others) have to conclude that it the the best fit explanation for your behaviour, as I am unable to come up with any understandable alternative explanation. You will of course call this paranoia, but the fact that you seem to move from forum to forum to do much the same thing does not seem explicable in any other light:- “I’ve seen it a number of times, specifically on forums for Steorn, Blacklight Power and EEStor.”

      • georgehants Reply

        October 14, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        Ben very nice little site, from tonight I will be putting my news on your page.
        I like many enjoy a fair debate, something one cannot achieve on a site that allows unstable people to run riot against every attempt at conversation.

        • maryyugo Reply

          October 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm

          … and there goes the neighborhood! Now excuse me while I bill my clients, the oil and power companies, for a huge amount of work. See you all at the bank!

          • Ransompw

            October 14, 2011 at 10:15 pm

            I doubt they would pay you very much for keeping this tiny group of ( ie Believers) what ever you call us occupied with responding to your posts.

            Actually when you come to think about it there really are very few of us following this drama (potentially world changing), which in a way makes us all one small family. Hope I didn’t ruin your evening.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 14, 2011 at 10:59 pm

            I’m so happy to learn you are still using banks, Mary. Kiss your money good-bye while depositing it. You might not see it again.

          • Ransompw

            October 14, 2011 at 11:22 pm

            Sorry Soo, I read your posts earlier about the collapse of western banks, NOT going to happen. Just print money and bail them out, prevent the wealthy from losing what they have, count on it, those that own this planet are not going to let a little thing like that bother them.

          • JMol

            October 15, 2011 at 12:06 am

            Disagree, Ransom. Bubbles and hyperinflation are very real. It has happened before in the industrialized world (ie Germany). What makes you think printing money would solve it. Hey oil is at $300 a barell, lets print money 3 times faster and our energy problem is solved!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>